checkAd

    Corporate Governance made in USA -- Die Enny Awards 2002 - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

    eröffnet am 15.07.02 15:36:48 von
    neuester Beitrag 24.07.02 03:02:50 von
    Beiträge: 12
    ID: 608.021
    Aufrufe heute: 0
    Gesamt: 714
    Aktive User: 0


     Durchsuchen

    Begriffe und/oder Benutzer

     

    Top-Postings

     Ja Nein
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.07.02 15:36:48
      Beitrag Nr. 1 ()
      Vertrauenskrise in den Dow? Nur weil ein paar "faule Äpfel" (O-Ton G.W.B.) ein bißchen geschummelt haben?

      Über sowas regt man sich nicht auf, sondern dafür gibt es Preise: Die Enny-Awards 2002 für die besten Abzocker in Corporate America! :D

      Gewinner in den zehn Einzelwertungen waren: COCA-COLA, CITIGROUP, EMC CORPORATION, AOL TIME WARNER, RAYTHEON, BOEING, LUCENT, HALLIBURTON, WORLDCOM, sowie stellvertretend für die Finanzdienstleister insgesamt CITIGROUP und MBNA.

      Außerdem gab`s den Special Lifetime Achievement Award für GENERAL ELECTRIC.

      Trotz der amüsanten Aufbereitung ein sehr lesenswerter Einblick in die Praktiken von Corporate America:

      http://www.ufenet.org/press/2002/Enron.pdf

      New report: Harmful Enron practices widespread

      Awards to most Enron-like
      companies; GE is No. 1


      Download the Report (PDF, 475 KB)

      "Titans of the Enron Economy: The 10
      Habits of Highly Defective
      Corporations," a new report by
      financial analyst Scott Klinger, reveals
      that key maneuvers leading to Enron’s
      meltdown are legal and widely
      practiced.

      The report ranks the worst companies
      in 10 categories and gives Enny
      Awards to companies that exemplify
      Enron’s harmful behavior in each area.
      The 10 habits encompass profits won
      through political influence, corrupting
      the watchdogs, tax dodges, undue
      risks for workers and excessive rewards for executives.

      The Enny Awards winners are COCA-COLA, CITIGROUP, EMC
      CORPORATION, AOL TIME WARNER, RAYTHEON, BOEING, LUCENT,
      HALLIBURTON, WORLDCOM, and the financial services industry,
      represented by CITIGROUP and MBNA.

      A special Lifetime Achievement Award goes to General Electric for scoring
      the highest average rank across all 10 bad habits, the only company to
      outrank second-place Enron. GE exceeds Enron’s score by an
      astonishing 45%.

      Much of the 1990s stock market boom was fueled by Enronesque
      accounting tricks that are perfectly legal. More than a third of corporate
      earnings growth from 1995 to 2000 stemmed from the practice of not
      treating stock options as expenses. For example, Lucent’s earnings would
      have been reduced by 30% from 1996 to 2000 if stock options had been
      expensed. Corporate political contributions and lobbying encouraged lax
      rules, with Enron’s
      price-gouging energy deregulation being only one example.

      To break the 10 bad habits, the report proposes a 12-Step Recovery
      Program: stronger disclosure requirements, independent auditors and
      boards, rotating auditors, progressive corporate taxes, diversified
      retirement accounts, earnings statements that expense stock options and
      exclude pension fund gains, balancing the interests of stakeholders, limits
      on government subsidies of foreign investments, banning company loans
      to executives, and
      ending taxpayer subsidies for excessive CEO pay.

      All 10 Enronesque habits and distinguished Enny Award winners are
      illustrated with glaring examples in the report.

      AND THE ENNY GOES TO...

      1. Retirement funds full of company stock... COCA-COLA

      2. Excessive CEO pay... CITIGROUP

      3. Massive layoffs while executives make millions... LUCENT
      TECHNOLOGIES

      4. Cozy insider boards... EMC CORPORATIONS

      5. Excessive board compensation...AOL TIME WARNER

      6. Auditors whose consulting contracts create conflicts of
      interest...RAYTHEON

      7. Hefty political contributions to buy access... The financial services
      industry; Accepting the award for the industry are CITIGROUP and MBNA

      8. Lobbying for legislative favoritism... BOEING

      9. Corporate welfare to finance dubious overseas investments...
      HALLIBURTON

      10. Avoidance of corporate taxes... WORLDCOM

      Scott Klinger is co-director of Responsible Wealth at United for a Fair
      Economy. A Chartered Financial Analyst, Klinger previously was an
      investment officer at United States Trust Company and vice president at
      Franklin Research and Development.

      United for a Fair Economy is a national, independent non-profit that
      spotlights growing economic inequality and advocates solutions for shared
      prosperity. The report is available on the web at www.FairEconomy.org.
      Hard copies are available upon request.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.07.02 18:41:40
      Beitrag Nr. 2 ()
      Hey Gatsby!

      Wirklich lustig, was da abgeht. Enron, GE, Worldcom, Lucent,... überall wird gemogelt. Schade nur, dass gerade dieser Tage alles rauskommt. Hätte die US-Aktien gerne noch ein paar Jährchen steigen gesehen.

      Ich glaube, LOR bekommt auch noch ernste Probleme. Und AMSC geht das Geld aus, trotz Auszeichnungen usw.

      Auf bessere Tage
      Gruß Micky
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.07.02 19:28:24
      Beitrag Nr. 3 ()
      Hey Micky,

      ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, daß die US-Aktien bald wieder fliegen werden. Aber bevor sie das tun, geht`s erst nochmal kräftig nach unten.

      Zwar sind die US Wirtschaftsindikatoren schon wieder stärker, als diejenigen Europas, aber bis sich das am Aktienmarkt auswirkt müssen sie wohl erst das verlorene Vertrauen zurückgewinnen. Schon in 2001 hat die Zahl der Unternehmen, die sich die vollmundig verkündeten Gewinne noch einmal genauer überlegen mußten, erheblich zugenommen, und 2002 möchte ich lieber erst gar nicht sehen:



      Außerdem bin ich mal sehr gespannt darauf, wie sich die geänderte Buchführungspraxis hinsichtlich der stock options auswirken wird. Immerhin eines der mit dem "Enny" ausgezeichneten Unternehmen hat sich mittlerweile zu einer Änderung der Buchführungspraxis durchgerungen. Für alle anderen wird es in absehbarer Zeit wohl auch Pflicht werden, aber was für Coke ein Cent pro Aktie ist, kann für andere leicht ein Vielfaches ausmachen.

      Monday July 15, 10:34 am Eastern Time

      Associated Press
      Coke to Count Options As an Expense
      By JUSTIN BACHMAN
      AP Business Writer

      Coke, in Key Accounting Change, to Treat Stock Options As Compensation, List Them As Expense

      ATLANTA (AP) -- Coca-Cola Co. will begin treating future stock option grants as employee compensation, a key accounting
      change that advocates contend offers a fairer assessment of a company`s performance.

      The gesture by such a prominent member of the business community could prompt changes by other major
      companies as investors and government officials clamor for greater transparency in U.S. accounting practices.

      Coke announced Sunday that, beginning in the fourth quarter, stock options will be listed as expenses over the period in which
      they mature, or vest, based on the value on the day they are granted.

      Stock options allow their owner to buy company shares at the price at which they were granted and are designed to be a
      management incentive.

      But many observers -- including Coke`s largest individual shareholder, billionaire Warren Buffett -- argued that options have
      induced executives to doctor financial reports to fuel their share prices. Enron executives earned tens of millions of dollars by
      cashing in their options before the energy trader`s stock plunged.

      "I think accounting generally, in recent years, has deteriorated and it`s done so with the help of management," Buffett said in a
      telephone interview Sunday. "But I think a big corrective move is under way."

      The issue has gained attention in Congress, where the Senate on Thursday defeated a proposal to make companies treat
      options as expenses. Coke officials agreed their voluntary move might lend momentum for the change.

      "Our management`s determination to change to the preferred method of accounting for employee stock options ensures that our
      earnings will more clearly reflect economic reality," Coke chairman and chief executive Douglas Daft said in a statement.

      Last year, Coke`s top five officers received 3.72 million stock options, including 1 million shares for Daft. About 8,200 of
      Coke`s 38,000 employees received options in 2001.

      The change makes Coca-Cola one of the largest companies to count stock options as a compensatory expense.

      Florida-based grocery chain Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. and aerospace giant Boeing Co. are the only other major companies to
      make the change, Coke officials said.

      "I think you`ll see more companies do it. I know of a couple more companies that are going to do it," Buffett said, declining to
      reveal them.

      "I think corporate America`s decided they better level with owners," said Buffett, who owns 8 percent of the beverage maker
      through Berkshire Hathaway Inc. "And any form of attempting to play with the numbers, or to record profits that don`t exist, or
      revenues that don`t exist, is just not going to sit well with investors."

      Treating options as an expense could weigh on earnings. Coke expects a financial impact of a penny per share this year against
      earnings, increasing to 3 cents in 2003, chief financial officer Gary Fayard said.

      In midmorning trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, Coke was down 8 cents at $50.97.

      :eek:

      P.S.: Hast Du Dir eigentlich mal den Rüstungsindex der letzten Tage angesehen? Seit George W. ein Haushaltsdefizit von ~$165 mrd. in Aussicht gestellt hat, scheinen die Experten mit erheblichen Budgetkürzungen zu rechnen...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.07.02 14:14:47
      Beitrag Nr. 4 ()
      Na toll, erst kündigen die Damen und Herren im US Senat vollmundig Reformen im Aktienrecht an, und dann kneifen sie ausgerechnet bei einer der zentralsten Fragen.

      Ist das der Weg um verlorenes Vertrauen wiederherzustellen?

      Monday July 15, 9:05 pm Eastern Time

      Reuters Company News
      US Senate reformers sidestep stock options quandary
      By Kevin Drawbaugh

      WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - Stock option expensing -- the monster in the attic of
      America`s house of corporate scandal -- was conspicuously ignored in an otherwise
      sweeping corporate reforms bill passed by the Senate on Monday.

      Fierce debate erupted off and on for days on the floor, but in the end, opponents blocked a move to force a
      Senate reckoning on how companies account for the controversial executive perk.

      As a result, the bill from Sen. Paul Sarbanes adopted by a unanimous vote will soon head to conference committee with the
      House of Representatives lacking a strategy on an issue that critics call a root cause of Wall Street`s accounting crisis. Critics
      charge the practice may tend to inflate some corporate earnings reports and skew management priorities.

      Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin said the Senate`s failure to act "leaves the reform work with a gaping hole."

      The battle between would-be reformers and lawmakers allied with industry lobbyists bitterly opposed to changes in option
      accounting rules was expected to continue in the conference.

      Rep. John LaFalce, a New York Democrat, said in a statement late on Monday he would work in the conference to amend the
      Sarbanes bill with proposals focused on shareholder approvals of stock option plans and on the expensing issue, itself.

      "Management`s interest must be aligned with shareholders ... executive compensation needs to be reined in, and ... financial
      statements of public companies should reflect the real costs of stock option plans," he said in a statement.

      Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and multibillionaire Warren Buffett are among those who favor changing
      stock option accounting.

      Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE:KO - News) and Washington Post Co. (NYSE:WPO - News), both of which have Buffett on their
      boards, said on Monday they would soon begin subtracting the cost of stock options from profits, as most accountants favor.

      But opponents remained opposed to government intervention on the question, arguing that stock options were not all bad and
      that ways of valuing them were still unreliable.

      "Stock options are a good idea ... But there are greedy, unethical corporate executives who have abused the idea," Sen.
      Joseph Lieberman told CNN on Monday. "What we ought to do is not let executives give themselves options, but require
      boards of directors to approve these stock options plans.

      "If you force a company to expense options when they`re granted ... there will be fewer options."

      OPTIONS` SPECIAL STATUS

      Stock options enjoy a rare privilege in U.S. accounting. Although they form a good portion of some executives` pay packets,
      companies are not required to count them as normal compensation costs by subtracting them from the most common measures
      of profits on their income statements.

      The Financial Accounting Standards Board, a private body that writes U.S. accounting rules, was considering requiring that
      options be expensed against profits eight years ago, when options were becoming widespread, but Congress intervened.

      Some lawmakers, including Lieberman, a Connecticut Democratic, worked to kill FASB`s option expensing proposal, and it
      died after corporations threatened to shut FASB down.

      FASB ended up adopting a measure that recommended expensing stock options, but made it optional as long as the impact of
      their cost was disclosed in financial statement footnotes.

      Only two S&P 500 Index companies -- aircraft builder Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) and grocer Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.
      (NYSE:WIN - News) -- decided to expense, while 498 others chose the footnote option.

      In years that followed, as markets boomed, stock options were awarded to corporate executives by the boatload. The
      non-cash compensation was seen as a way to attract and retain talented senior managers. The options allowed executives to
      buy shares at below-market prices and sell them later at market, profiting on the difference.

      Critics have said the short-term exercise periods of option plans, often three to five years, motivated some executives to use
      questionable means to quickly jack up their company`s stock price, cash in their options, rake in a fortune and walk away.

      Executives at bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp. (Other OTC:ENRNQ.PK - News) made millions of dollars by selling stock
      in the company.

      Today, after a decade-long options bonanza, Wall Street is awash in scandal and the issue is back to haunt lawmakers.

      "Congress has painted itself into a box ... Lieberman is not going to change his mind because it would make him look totally
      wrong for opposing stock option expensing in the first place," said Rice University accounting professor Bala Dharan. "So
      they`re hoping for a market solution."

      As the market slumps, technology and telecommunications lobbyists find themselves with diminishing power to oppose
      expensing declines, possibly opening the door for change in the near future.

      "If the market doesn`t recover for another year or more, many of these people are going to figuratively die off, so the whole
      lobbying picture will change. The markets then may begin to see options differently," Dharan said.

      "I don`t see any other way out of this until the market punishes these companies that have been issuing all these options pretty
      severely."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.07.02 01:38:10
      Beitrag Nr. 5 ()
      George W. Bush und sein Kabinett sind vertrauenswürdig

      Oder etwa nicht?

      Quelle:http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/2002/07/16_southern.html

      :D

      July 16, 2002

      No Moral Authority

      by Rebecca Knight

      "Public officials should call on Americans to be responsible,
      but lectures do not replace leadership. Leaders must lead by
      example. Leaders must be responsible, and in our great
      democracy, the top responsibility rests with the President of the
      United States."
      -- George W. Bush

      Can you believe that quote? Do you think even Bush believes what he
      said? If you do, I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge at a bargain price.
      How does he do it? What type of personality defect allows the leader
      of the free world to make such astounding statements knowing all along
      that he has no intention of living up to what he says?

      Harry Truman, a leader of moral courage and strength, coined the
      famous phrase "The Buck Stops Here." George W. Bush has revised the
      phrase to read "The Buck Stops Anywhere But Here" by his words and
      deeds. Whenever attempts are made to hold him responsible for his
      personal actions and/or actions of his administration, he has attempted
      to blame lawyers, accountants, advisors, Democrats, Clinton, Gore, and
      anyone else he can think of.

      Of course, this is not the first time in history that a president has made
      such sweepingly hypocritical statements. The times we are living in are
      eerily reminiscent of the Watergate era. Bush and Cheney are embroiled
      in numerous scandals, just as Nixon and Agnew were. In that vein I
      predict that Cheney will resign within the next twelve months,
      especially if the Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate in
      November, making Democrat Richard Gephardt the Speaker of the
      House and third in line to the presidency. The resignation of Cheney
      would give Bush the right to nominate a Republican as vice president,
      just as Nixon appointed Gerald Ford.

      Recently I researched the events that led to the resignation of Nixon`s vice president,
      Spiro Agnew. It makes for very interesting reading. Agnew was not the first vice president
      to resign, just the first to resign in disgrace with a criminal record. Agnew resigned in 1973
      within two months of the Wall Street Journal breaking the story of a bribery scandal in
      which he received a $10,000 pay-off in his temporary office in the basement of the White
      House.(1) He pleaded no contest to a single charge of failing to report $29,500 of income
      received in 1967. He was fined $10,000 and placed on three years probation.

      It appears that the troubles of Cheney are far more serious than those of Agnew. Cheney
      maintains that Halliburton had a firm policy against doing business with Iraq during his term
      as CEO, but the company`s subsidiaries signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million with
      Cheney at the helm.(2) Cheney also led Halliburton to feed from the federal trough
      receiving $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans.(3)

      Judicial Watch is suing Cheney for misleading shareholders of Halliburton about the
      company`s value. They claim that Cheney, other company officers, and Arthur Andersen
      boosted the share price of Halliburton.(4) Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch intends to call
      Cheney to testify. Cheney cannot sidestep this case since the Supreme Court ruled that a
      sitting president or vice president has no immunity from civil litigation. Cheney even
      appeared in a promotional video for the disgraced Arthur Andersen.

      The SEC is investigating Halliburton for accounting practices during Cheney`s tenure.
      Cheney may be called to chat with the SEC since he signed the company`s financial
      statements in 1998 and 1999. Current Halliburton CEO, David Lesar, said Cheney was
      aware that the firm was counting projected cost-overrun payments as revenue. Lesar
      said, "The vice president was aware of who owed us money and he helped us collect
      it."(5)

      And what about Bush? On Saturday Bush stated that restoring confidence in the integrity
      of business leaders is "perhaps the greatest need of our economy." How will that be
      accomplished when Bush is hip deep in reported corruption through insider trading with
      Harken Energy? Bush and Cheney, who ran as a CEO-M.B.A. team, have no credibility on
      the integrity of business leaders.

      Bush says he has been "fully vetted" on the Harken situation. That is an outright lie since
      the SEC never even interviewed Bush on the situation.(6) Bush also said that the SEC had
      cleared him of wrongdoing. Also not true. The Poppy Bush SEC chose not to pursue the
      matter, but stated that Bush had not been exonerated.(7) The general counsel of the SEC
      then was James Doty, who represented Bush in his purchase of the Texas Rangers
      baseball team.

      Bush advised reporters to look at the minutes from the meetings to confirm that what he
      was saying is true, but the minutes have not been released and the White House refused
      last week to release them. However, the Boston Globe reported this on Saturday: "Records
      from a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation include that Bush, who served on
      Harken`s board of directors and was a member of a special committee to deal with the
      financial troubles, had been warned about the company`s financial crisis by its president,
      Mikel D. Faulkner, and other officers before selling his stock."(8)

      Poppy Bush was president at the time, in perfect position to notify his son of events that
      might impact Harken and his personal stock holdings. Poppy`s national security advisor,
      Brent Scowcroft, sent the president a secret memo warning that hostilities between Iraq
      and Kuwait were likely. At the time, Harken`s only pending contract was for drilling project
      in Bahrain. The outbreak of war in the Persian Gulf would have ruinous implications for
      Harken. The Gulf hostilities broke out less than two months after Bush sold his Harken
      shares and Harken stock dropped in value. Its shares lost twenty-five percent of their
      value on the day Iraq invaded Kuwait, which would have cost Bush nearly $250,000 had
      he still owned his shares.(9)

      Bush unloaded more than 200,000 shares of Harken stock just before the value
      plummeted. Who was the willing buyer waiting to snap up these shares? It appears it may
      have been Harvard Management Company, Inc., whose sole client is Harvard University
      where Bush got his M.B.A.(10)

      Many in the media maintain that there is nothing to the ten-year-old Harken controversy.
      Really? Then why does Bush not release the minutes to the meetings and why can Bush
      not get his story straight? Why was a twenty-year-old land deal relevant enough to cause
      a more than $70 million investigation into the Clintons` involvement, but the Harken
      questions are not important? The Clintons lost money on that deal, but Bush made
      hundreds of thousands. This is another example of the media`s double standard.

      The entire situation reeks! It reeks even more because it was all known during campaign
      2000, but the media barely mentioned it and the voters yawned. It was more important to
      harangue Gore over his choice of clothing or similar trivial matters.

      It`s not just Bush and Cheney who are involved in big business corruption. Many working in
      their administration are also involved. Thomas White, Secretary of the Army, was the
      former Enron vice chairman of Enron Energy Services, which was implicated in manipulating
      electricity prices in California. White sold $12 million worth of Enron stock between June
      and November of last year. Paul O`Neill, Secretary of the Treasury is the former chief
      executive of Alcoa. After taking his office, O`Neill delayed selling his shares in Alcoa until
      they had appreciated by thirty percent. Larry Lindsey, the White House economic adviser,
      was a paid Enron consultant while devising the Bush campaign economic plan. Why have
      none of these people been dismissed or asked to resign by Bush? It could be that they are
      kept around for the sole purpose of taking the heat off of Bush himself.

      Not only have they not been asked to resign, Bush recently appointed Deputy Attorney
      General, Larry Thompson as the head of the new corporate crime task forced. Mr.
      Thompson was as a director for Providian, a credit card company that paid more than
      $400 million to settle allegations of unfair and deceptive business practices.

      Congressman Henry Waxman has written to Bush requesting that he and members of his
      administration do the honorable thing and donate profits made through questionable stock
      sales to charities set up to help displaced workers. Nice try Henry, but we know they
      won`t do the honorable thing.

      Bush and Cheney are attempting to hide behind executive privilege as did the Nixon
      administration. Sam Ervin, who chaired the committee investigating Watergate had this to
      say about Nixon`s attempts to hide behind executive privilege: "The President seems to
      extend executive privilege way out past the atmosphere. What he says is executive
      privilege is nothing but executive poppycock." U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan ruled
      against the Bush administration`s motion to dismiss the lawsuits involving the Cheney
      energy task force. He said that the Bush administration has a disturbingly broad legal view
      of confidential advice to the president that would keep a huge amount of government
      information secret. He also accused the Bush administration of making purposefully
      misleading statements.(11)

      To say that Republican attempts to lasso the Democrats with similar big business
      corruption are wobbly is an understatement. In the 2000 presidential election, WorldCom
      gave seventy percent and Arthur Andersen gave seventy-one percent of their political
      donations to Bush. From 1989 through 2001 Enron gave seventy-four percent of its
      political donations to the Republicans. Enron also gave $300,000 to the Bush inaugural
      fund in 2001 and helped out with the costs of the 2000 Florida recount.

      Democrats have attempted several times to enact legislation to eliminate or restrict
      corporate corruption, but the Republicans voted them down. Now Bush is proposing many
      of the same ideas.

      In April 2002, 214 Republicans voted against a Democratic substitute amendment to the
      Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002 that
      would impose tougher regulations on corporations than the Republican bill. The amendment
      would have imposed criminal penalties on CEOs who falsify financial reports. The
      amendment failed 202 to 219.

      In April 2002, 218 Republicans voted against a Democratic motion to recommit the
      Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002 that
      would have included in the bill language similar to the Democratic substitute, adding public
      regulator and executive accountability provisions, including criminal penalties for false
      certification of financial statements. The motion failed 205 to 222.

      In April 2002, 214 Republicans opposed a Democratic substitute amendment to the
      Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act that would
      create a public regulator to oversee auditors. The regulator would have authority to set
      auditing standards and conduct more thorough investigations. The amendment was
      rejected, 202-219.

      In April 2002, 214 Republicans voted against a Democratic substitute amendment to the
      Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002 that
      would, among other things, seek to curb conflicted investment advice by prohibiting
      analysts from owning stock in companies they research and barring them from having their
      pay tied to the revenue of their investment banking firm. The amendment failed 202 to
      219.

      In April 2002, 214 Republicans voted against a Democratic substitute amendment to the
      Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002 that
      would, among other things, replace the executive responsibility provisions in the bill to
      require executive certification of financial statements. The amendment failed 202 to 219.

      In April 2002, 209 Republicans voted against the Democratic substitute amendment to the
      Pensions Security Act of 2002 that would have mandated independent investment advice
      for employees with company stock, required a 30-day notice of any limitation on company
      stock sales and would have mandated equal representation of employees and employers
      on pension boards. The amendment failed 187 to 232.

      In June 2002, 191 Republicans voted against the Neal (D-MA) motion to recommit the
      Retirement Savings Security Act of 2002, which would have closed a loophole that allows
      corporations to locate their headquarters offshore in order to avoid paying federal taxes.
      The motion failed 186 to 192.(12)

      The evidence against the Bush administration and the Republican Party on corporate
      influence and corruption is significant. It is time for the Democrats to use this issue in the
      upcoming election. Get the facts out and hold the Republicans accountable.

      I can sense a bit of déjà vu in looking at the current political situation of Bush and
      Cheney. Both are under fire and being investigated as Nixon and Agnew were. Perhaps the
      investigations are not as intense as the Watergate era, but the potential for the same
      type scenario exists. This is especially true if the Democrats control Congress after the fall
      elections and it is the reason those elections are so critical.

      The Republican Party hounded Clinton for his entire eight-year term with investigation
      after investigation and cries about the "rule of law." It is time that they are held
      accountable in the same fashion!

      "Well, I`m not a crook."
      -- Richard Milhous Nixon

      * * *

      (1) http://www.apbonline.com/media/gfiles/agnew/

      (2) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.sht…

      (3) http://www.public-i.org/story_01_080200.htm

      (4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_21190…

      (5) http://www.msnbc.com/news/780130.asp

      (6) http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/lackof13.htm

      (7) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1447-2002Jul1…

      (8) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0713-01.htm

      (9) http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/bush-j09.shtml

      (10) http://www.newsmakingnews.com/catharvardpubinteg.htm

      (11) http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.14D.jge.bush.view.p.htm

      (12) http://www.investorsbillofrights.com/GOPfailed.phtml

      * * *

      Trading Spotlight

      Anzeige
      Rallye II. – Neuer Anstoß, News und was die Börsencommunity jetzt nicht verpassen will…mehr zur Aktie »
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.07.02 19:40:21
      Beitrag Nr. 6 ()
      Pikante Lektüre für`s Wochenende:

      Mitglieder amerikanischer Bürgerrechtsbewegungen ziehen Parallelen zwischen Bush und Hitler:

      http://www.bushwatch.net/lost.htm (2. Artikel)

      Hitler`s Playbook: Bush and the Abuse of Power
      by W. David Jenkins and Sara DeHart July 4, 2002


      "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate
      power."
      (Benito Mussolini, Encyclopedia Italiana)

      According to David Gergen (1999), the 2000 election was about raw political power. He termed it a hinge
      point in history. The last time the GOP controlled the White House and the Congress was when "Ike" was
      in charge and he didn`t want to rock the boat. "Conservatives have very different ideas in mind if they can
      grab the helm now." What Gergen and other members of the media didn`t mention to the American people
      is that if the Far Right could control the White House and Congress, they could also control the judiciary
      and the fate and face of America for generations to come.

      And grab the helm they did, not by winning the White House by a majority, but by Supreme Court fiat ( with
      at least two judges violating several statutes of Title 28 Sec. 455 of the Judicial and Judiciary Procedure).
      Even with the legitimacy of the Bush presidency in question, the Conservatives -- those with the Far Right
      agenda -- grabbed the raw political power that Gergen predicted would be the outcome of that election. The
      abuse of power in the guise of pushing an agenda which the majority of the electorate voted against would
      now become a perverted rule of law. The Far Right transformed into the Far Reich. We need only to look at
      Bush`s nominations and appointments to fully appreciate this tactic. Corporate America`s cronies were
      placed in every powerful position within the Bush administration. From Alcoa`s O`Neil as Secretary of
      Treasury to Enron`s White as the Secretary of Army, this administration represents Totalitarian
      Corporatism. And what precisely does Totalitarian Corporatism look like and how does this play out in the
      United States? Will the outcomes be any different for America than they were for Germany?

      When most people hear the word "fascism" they think of racism and anti-Semitism, the hallmarks of the
      totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But do not forget there is an economic policy component of
      fascism known as "corporatism," an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism (DiLorenzo 1994).
      This is why corporate leaders played key roles in financing Hitler as Chancellor and George W. Bush`s run
      for the White House. Corporate heads from the United States, England and Germany financed Hitler`s rise
      to power. These same powerful worldwide forces from the Military-Industrial Complex, Oil, Energy, and
      Media spent millions of dollars to influence the American 2000 election. And when the election could not be
      bought, they used five members of the United States Supreme Court to stop the Florida vote, thereby
      giving election "victory" to the eldest son of George Herbert Walker Bush. Now why was this election so
      important to the Far Right forces? And having gained the White House, what -- besides greed and power --
      motivates them to change the face of America? Why would a political party supposedly dedicated to
      "states` rights" use the Supreme Court to usurp those rights? Why would a political party with slogans
      such as "get the government off our backs" move to take over the government and all its vast financial
      resources? There is only one explanation. Totalitarian corporate industrial policy. From the Department of
      Energy to the Departments of Justice and Defense, the Bush administration has worked to establish
      policies that do not serve the interests of the people, but serve the interests of rich and powerful
      corporations.

      "Totalitarianism is a form of government in which all societal resources are monopolized by the state in an
      effort to penetrate and control all aspects of public and private life, through the state`s use of propaganda,
      terror, and technology. Totalitarian ideologies reject the existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond
      reform. They project an alternative society in which these wrongs are to be redressed, and provide plans
      and programs for realizing the alternative order." http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html

      These ideologies are supported by propaganda campaigns and demand total conformity on the part of the
      people. Can we honestly say that the Bush Far Reich agenda is any different from that of Hitler`s Third
      Reich when it comes to this form of ideology?

      Parallels Between Hitler`s and Bush`s Power Game Plan

      As Chancellor, Hitler manipulated President Hindenberg into dissolving the Reichstag to permit new
      elections. He sought a Nazi majority in the Reichstag to rubber-stamp whatever laws the big corporations
      that financed him wanted. Hitler abused democracy to establish his dictatorship. Is this any different from
      the methods Mr. Bush used to secure the presidency -- by Supreme Court fiat rather than an election by
      the people? And then he used a slim Congressional majority to push through legislation favorable to
      corporations.

      Following his inauguration Vice President Dick Cheney was all over the Congress and Senate imposing
      the Far Reich agenda. This is the "raw power" that Gergen meant in his "Hinge Point in History" editorial.
      Deals from energy to defense were made in secret in the Vice President`s office. Enron wrote Cheney`s
      Energy Policy that cost Californians and North Western citizens billions. Texas and international oil
      interests had the entire country by the tail and a Republican majority in Congress rubber-stamped
      everything from the tax cut for the wealthiest 2% to the rape of the environment. And with few notable
      exceptions, the media were silent. How very much like Hitler`s Third Reich and his propaganda machine.

      Bush`s cabinet was installed to serve the interests of corporations, not the people. His actual disdain for
      regular American citizens is typified by his quote about those citizens who objected to his administrative
      choices. "My picks obviously activated the voices of a few, the fringe people, the special-interest groups
      whose job is to make a lotta noise in Washington, DC." If you are not with Bush, you are fringe. If you want
      to stop global warming, you are fringe. If you object to any of his policies, you are fringe. How very much
      like Hitler`s marginalization of the people, group by group.

      And then came September 11, 2001, with the direct attack on America followed by the counter-attack on
      Afghanistan. This unleashed a whole new level of Far Reich control over the American people and the
      agenda. To keep a population in line, both Hitler and Bush declared perpetual war. Or in Hitler`s words:
      "Another weapon I discovered early was the power of the printed word to sway souls to me. The
      newspaper was soon my gun, my flag-a thing with a soul that could mirror my own." But in this case
      technology has moved light years ahead of Hitler`s time and Bush`s Far Reich uses the power of television,
      controlled by a few corporate heads, to control and sway. Following 911 the patriotism of the American
      people was twisted to suit the purposes of the Far Reich Agenda just as patriotism of the German people
      was twisted following the Reichstag fire to suit the purposes of the Third Reich.

      You are with us or against us. In Germany if you were against Hitler and the Nazis you were
      subjected to tribunal "justice." Civil rights were discarded and many ended up in concentration camps.
      In Bush`s America, an unknown number of Arab detainees are being held in U.S. jails and the
      Guantanamo Naval Base. They do not have access to legal representation. Their resources are
      frozen, and the American public is assured that if they are charged they will have access to legal
      representation. Though their actual numbers and identities were kept secret, we were told that these
      detainees were not American citizens. Now we learn that an American citizen, Jose Padilla, is being
      held without legal counsel in a catch-22 situation that is worthy of a Joseph Heller plot.

      Secrecy is the Far Reich Bush policy and if you question that policy, you are unpatriotic. German
      citizens learned very early to keep quiet and not ask questions. American citizens are learning the
      same painful lesson. The Bush administration is the most secret in our recorded history and those
      who dare question the administration`s secrecy are labeled "unpatriotic."

      Fear and isolation are weapons. The German people were not stupid or unaware. They saw their
      neighbors beaten and threatened. They saw them disappear. And they did not want this to happen to
      themselves or their families. Now we are seeing the same situation in the United States as members
      of the FBI intimidate people who dare dissent. Those who choose not to stand miles away in the
      "First Amendment Zones" whenever a Bush official speaks in a public arena do so at risk to their
      freedom. This happens and the media remains silent. The TV cameras focus on those in agreement
      with Far Reich policies and ignore those who dissent. News people who dissent lose their jobs.
      Professors who dissent are held up to ridicule by university administrators. It did not take long for all
      in the news business to realize that Bush praise is the secret formula for survival in a tough
      competitive market.

      Attack Intellectualism. Hitler`s Playbook specified that Intellectualism must be attacked and did so by
      book burning and destruction of news sources unfriendly to the Third Reich. Goebbels presided over
      a communications monopoly. Nazi youth groups heckled professors until administrators forced them
      out of universities. We need go no further than Lynne Cheney`s American Council of Trustees and
      Alumni (http://www.counterpunch.org/foley0522.html) to see the corollary of Bush`s Far Reich.
      "Lynne Cheney`s right wing, not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization collected "unpatriotic" utterances
      and issued its report, "Defending Civilization: How our universities are failing America and what can
      be done about it" (Foley, 5/22/02). Germany lost incredible intellectual talent in the 1930s (e.g.,
      Einstein, Freud). Will the United States lose its most talented university people by 2004?

      Closely allied with Cheney`s ACTA is William Bennett`s Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT)
      project. According to their campaign literature "AVOT is designed to combat those who would weaken
      the nation`s resolve and erode our commitment to end the international menace of terrorism." One of
      their articles stated that "anti-war ferment in America is growing." In other words, speak praise of Far
      Reich policies or expect to be attacked. Will ACTA and AVOT grow so powerful that we will be afraid
      to dissent? At what point will the media notice that our right to free speech is gone?

      The abuses of power before and, especially, after 9/11 by the Bush Reich have been unsettling, to say the
      least. The world is watching us, believing we all support the policies Bush and his thugs are pursuing. They
      see the similarities. But our former main source of information, television and the newspapers, seems
      silent in the face of such a threat to what our founding fathers had in mind.

      There has been no attention paid to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where uncounted
      numbers of American citizens are being held without charge while Ashcroft petitions the courts to allow
      their deportation. The defense counsels of John Lindh, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid and Jose Padilla
      have had their hands tied by the DOJ in the name of "national security." If George and his gang decide to
      call you a "hostile combatant" then you can just kiss your rights goodbye. Some still argue that these
      people and others like them are proven enemies of the country or just "very bad people," but how long will
      it take before the precedent being set with these accused "terrorists" trickles down to folks like you and
      me?

      There is an ugly secret being kept from all of us. Some of us recognize this -- especially those who see it
      from afar -- and then there are those who continue to refuse to believe it could happen here. And there lies
      the danger. Arthur Livingstone (2001) asked the question, "Does history repeat itself?" and the answer,
      unfortunately, is yes. (http://www.goodwriters.net/dhri1.html) We, in America, are seeing a reincarnation of
      the Third Reich, and its name is Corporatism. If left unchecked, the worst case scenario will be that
      Americans will be left without liberty, justice or freedom. Thomas Jefferson saw the threat in 1816: "I hope
      we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
      government to a trial of strength and bid defiance of the laws of our country."

      The only thing standing in the way of the Far Reich`s goal of corporatism is the American public. One
      stumbling block that Bush faces that Hitler didn`t have to contend with, is the vast amount of information
      available with today`s technology. The Internet has brought a world together in ways never dreamed of in
      the days of WWII. It is both a source of comfort that we are not alone and a source of frustration as it
      causes us to wonder when will the rest of the country catch up?

      We all know that our European neighbors notice the similarities discussed in this series. They wonder
      when we are going to finally wake up. So many Americans have given their lives to defend that which
      makes this country a unique and special place. Will we let the noble experiment in democracy die in the
      21st Century? Will we let it die at the hands of George W. Bush`s version of the Third Reich?


      Note: This is Part III in a series. Parts I and II are below. Also published in America Held Hostile
      Avatar
      schrieb am 22.07.02 01:56:41
      Beitrag Nr. 7 ()
      Nicht neu, aber auf deutsch:

      Sonntag, 21. Juli 2002
      Insiderhandel mit Aktien?
      Bush unter Verdacht

      Erneut schwere Vorwürfe gegen US-Präsident George W. Bush wegen Insiderhandels: Einem Zeitungsbericht zufolge soll Bush im Jahr 1990 kurz vor dem Aktienverkauf von Finanzproblemen einer Ölfirma gewusst haben.

      Wie die "Washington Post" berichtet, lagen Bush und anderen leitenden Angestellten des Unternehmens Harken Energy Corp. vertrauliche Informationen über die mangelnde Liquidität der Firma vor. Bush und seine Kollegen seien in einem Brief der Geschäftsleitung darauf hingewiesen worden, dass die Geschäftsaktivität des Unternehmens deshalb erheblich eingeschränkt werden müsse. Vier Monate später habe Bush den Großteil seines Pakets an Harken-Aktien verkauft. Die Zeitung berief sich auf ausgewählte Dokumente einer Untersuchung der US-Börsenaufsicht SEC.

      Bush war bereits ein Verstoß gegen Insiderregeln vorgeworfen worden, weil er die Harken-Aktien im Wert von 848.560 US-Dollar im Juni 1990 verkaufte, kurz bevor Harken Verluste in Höhe von 23 Mio. US-Dollar einräumte. Daraufhin gab die Aktie deutlich nach. Bush wies die Vorwürfe zurück.

      Auch eine Untersuchung der Börsenaufsicht SEC hatte ergeben, dass Bush den Aktienverkauf zwar zu spät angezeigt habe, ihm aber kein Insiderhandel zur Last gelegt werden könne. Bush hatte sich dennoch in jüngster Zeit immer wieder gegen die Veröffentlichung der SEC-Untersuchungsakten ausgesprochen.

      Auch Cheney in der Kritik

      Auch US-Vizepräsident Dick Cheney ist wegen seiner früheren Tätigkeit als Chef des Industriekonzerns Halliburton in die Kritik geraten. Die US-Börsenaufsicht untersucht derzeit Vorwürfe, wonach Cheney durch eine finanzielle Überbewertung der Firma den Aktionären geschadet haben soll.

      Eine Reihe von Bilanz-Unregelmäßigkeiten bei US-Konzernen wie Enron und WorldCom hat in den vergangenen Wochen das Vertrauen der Anleger erschüttert und zu erheblichen Kurseinbrüchen geführt. Bush kündigte härtere Gesetze an, um Bilanzfälschungen in Zukunft einen Riegel vorzuschieben.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 22.07.02 03:33:08
      Beitrag Nr. 8 ()
      #6,

      Die Bürgerrechtler scheinen sich im Dickicht der Ismen aber arg verheddert zu haben: Eine wichtige Paralele zum Mussolini-Faschismus besteht zum Beispiel nicht:

      Jener institutionalisiert zwar einen Ständestaat, aber: in ihm sollten auch die unteren Stände ein staatlich garantiertes Auskommen haben. Dies sollte nicht dem "Markt" überlassen sein, oder einem sonstwie gearteten "freien Spiel der Kräfte". Insofern war die Wirtschaft gebunden.

      Die Wurzeln der Hitlerei sind noch andere: Volksgemeinschaft auf rassisch elitärer Grundlage (Arier).

      Niemand kann doch meinen, daß Bush so etwas anvisiere.

      Ich glaube man tut ihm kein Unrecht, wenn man mutmaßt, daß, wenn er in Wendungen vom starken, glorreichen Amerika spricht, er doch ehr, sage ich mal so salopp, die Millionenwillys meint.

      Das findet aber doch im Selbstverständnis der Hitlerei keine Entsprechung.

      Wenn Hitler und die Seinen von Großdeutschland bramabasierten, an welche, ich sage mal Millionengustavs, hätte er denn denken sollen.

      Wo es ebenfalls überhaupt keine Paralele gibt, welches aber konsistenter Bestandteil des hitlerschen Ismus ist, ist die Ausrottungspolitik anderen Ethnien gegenüber, wenn diese nicht anderweitig aus dem Gesichtskreis verschwänden.
      (Mit der Indianersache hat Bush nichts zu tun.)

      Einiges zur Hitlerei kann man aus "Anmerkungen zu Hitler" von Sebastian Haffner entnehmen.

      Ich nehme nicht an, das "Paralelen" bei 1+1=2 gesehen werden, will sagen: aggressive Außenpolitik.

      Da ist jeder für sich wohl in großer Gesellschaft.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 22.07.02 12:10:36
      Beitrag Nr. 9 ()
      #8

      Sicher schießt die Polemik des Artikels weit über das Ziel hinaus, aber die Behauptung ideologischer Ähnlichkeiten stellen sie ja auch nicht auf. Es geht doch vielmehr um Parallelen in den (u.a. wirtschaftlich motivierten) Hintergründen, der Vorgehensweise und dem demokratischen Verständnis.

      "When most people hear the word "fascism" they think of racism and anti-Semitism, the hallmarks of the
      totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But do not forget there is an economic policy component of
      fascism known as "corporatism," an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism (DiLorenzo 1994)."

      Finanziers und Regierungsmitglieder Bushs stammen zu großen Teilen aus der Rüstungs- und Energieindustrie. Exemplarisch Mr. Cheney, der selbst jahrelang bei Halliburton Oil war, während seine Frau etwa 6 Wochen vor der Wahl ihr Aufsichtsratsamt bei Lockheed Martin niedergelegt hat.

      Während das Thema Rüstung in den Wahlkampfreden des George Bush allenfalls zwei Zeilen wert war, hat er wenig später den Etat in einer Weise erhöht, die selbst Ronald Reagan hätte erblassen lassen. Unmittelbar nach der Wahl wurde ein von Clinton eingerichtetes Naturschutzgebiet zum Kohleabbau freigegeben, und die Ölindustrie bekam auch endlich die heißersehnten Explorationsgenehmigungen für Alaska, obwohl sehr fraglich erscheint, ob die relativ kleinen Vorkommen diese Kosten und Umweltgefahren wirklich wert sind.

      Bemerkenswert ist aber vor allem der Umgang mit demokratischen Institutionen, z.B.:

      - von `Wahl` kann im Falle des George Bush bekanntermaßen wohl kaum die Rede sein, und seit etwa einem Jahr ist ein republikanisch dominiertes Komittee dabei, eine Vielzahl von Wahlbezirken so umzugestalten, daß republikanische Mehrheiten weitestmöglich gesichert sind;

      - die Einrichtung militärischer Geheimgerichte für bestimmte Ausländer spricht sämtlichen rechtsstaatlichen Grundsätzen Hohn (u.a. auch einem der Eckpfeiler der amerikanischen Verfassungsgeschichte, dem berühmten "Amistad"-Urteil);

      - die Trennung zwischen Polizei und Geheimdiensten (die mit gutem Grund jeder demokratischen Verfassung immanent ist) wurde durch die Schaffung eines Superministeriums für Heimatverteidigung -der Name könnte von Orwell stammen- praktisch aufgehoben...

      Ein bißchen bedenklich ist das schon, oder nicht?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 23.07.02 19:19:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10 ()
      Gatsby,

      ja, aber wir sollten uns nicht in Kategorien und Sprachregelungen ergehen, die zur Infantilisierung, vor allem aber zur Entpolitisierung des "Staatsbürgers" gedreht wurden.

      Die Politik Bushs, die er nicht mal selber macht, hat zum Gegenstand (und dies ist schon seit 150 Jahren so) eine kleine Gruppe (Oligarchen) zu privilegieren, die große Masse aber von Participation auszuschließen.

      Der Begriff "Volksgemeinschaft" der Hitlerei impliziert doch aber das gerade Gegenteil. (Öffentliche NS-Kritik klammert diesen Aspekt bewußt aus und nimmt insoweit den mündigen, demokratischen Staatsbürger nicht ernst. Im Gegenteil: sie manipuliert den Bürger zurück in vordemokratische Zustände.)

      Aggressive Außenpolitik aber (in einem Sektor - Rassenwahn - im NS-Staat auch nach innen gerichtet) hat Paralelen in allen Zeitläuften.und allen Regionen.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 23.07.02 22:41:21
      Beitrag Nr. 11 ()
      Amtmann,

      Der Begriff "Volksgemeinschaft" der Hitlerei als Gegenteil des Ausschlusses der großen Masse von der Teilhabe??? :confused:

      Du willst hier nicht im Ernst erzählen, Nationalsozialismus sei wahre Teilhabe oder gar Demokratie gewesen, oder?

      Unter Adolf konnten zwar Blockwarte und andere Minderbemittelte durch Denunziation ihr Fortkommen befördern, aber die damaligen `Eliten` haben sich ja wohl in einer Schamlosigkeit die Taschen vollgestopft, die ihresgleichen sucht. Die "Hitlerei" war doch insofern nichts anderes, als maximale Korruption der Herrschenden, pseudo-rechtlich abgesichert durch das Führerprinzip.

      Von aggressiver Außenpolitik als Parallele zwischen Bush und Hitler hatte ich übrigens noch nichts gesagt. Aber vielleicht könntest Du ja diesen Aspekt mal ein wenig beleuchten.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.07.02 03:02:50
      Beitrag Nr. 12 ()
      Ga.,

      Ich gebe mich geschlagen: Im Turbokapitalismus füllen sie sich die Taschen, bei den Nazis haben sich die Goldfasane
      die Taschen gefüllt - und erst die Kommunisten, die konnten den Hals überhaupt nicht voll genug kriegen. besonders Erich mit seiner millionenschweren Haferschleimsuppe und seinen gefälschten VEB-Guccianzügen.
      Und diese Kathi, igitt,läßt sich einen Kühlschrank schenken, oder was das war.

      Mensch Gatsby2: Es geht doch hier um das intelektuelle Konstrukt, um die Wurzeln, die Basis, um das Wesen dieser drei Veranstaltungen! Daß die beiden Letzten ganz böse sind, die 1. aber 3/4 gut, können wir 3 mal auf jeder gedruckten Seite lesen und auf allen 40 Sendern rund um die Uhr sehen.

      Hier kann es doch nicht um erinnerungs-schimpfen gehen.

      Wenn Techniker nach Maßgabe politischer Debatten arbeiten würden: daß würde was geben.


      Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben


      Zu dieser Diskussion können keine Beiträge mehr verfasst werden, da der letzte Beitrag vor mehr als zwei Jahren verfasst wurde und die Diskussion daraufhin archiviert wurde.
      Bitte wenden Sie sich an feedback@wallstreet-online.de und erfragen Sie die Reaktivierung der Diskussion oder starten Sie
      hier
      eine neue Diskussion.
      Corporate Governance made in USA -- Die Enny Awards 2002