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
neuester Beitrag 24.07.02 03:02:50 von
Beiträge: 12
ID: 608.021
ID: 608.021
Aufrufe heute: 0
Gesamt: 714
Gesamt: 714
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
---|---|---|
gestern 20:01 | 5866 | |
gestern 22:29 | 5638 | |
gestern 20:28 | 5561 | |
gestern 20:05 | 5230 | |
vor 59 Minuten | 4935 | |
gestern 21:39 | 3476 | |
gestern 21:56 | 3246 | |
gestern 21:53 | 2759 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | 1. | 18.500,48 | -0,12 | 119 | |||
2. | 2. | 0,1800 | -83,67 | 74 | |||
3. | 4. | 2.231,78 | +1,79 | 51 | |||
4. | 3. | 20,910 | -5,47 | 49 | |||
5. | 5. | 175,50 | -2,41 | 37 | |||
6. | 6. | 4,9230 | -0,47 | 37 | |||
7. | 7. | 1,0300 | +13,30 | 34 | |||
8. | 9. | 0,2105 | -3,22 | 33 |
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!
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.
Über sowas regt man sich nicht auf, sondern dafür gibt es Preise: Die Enny-Awards 2002 für die besten Abzocker in Corporate America!
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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.
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...
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."
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."
George W. Bush und sein Kabinett sind vertrauenswürdig
Oder etwa nicht?
Quelle:http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/2002/07/16_southern.html
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
* * *
Oder etwa nicht?
Quelle:http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/2002/07/16_southern.html
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
* * *
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
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
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.
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.
#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.
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.
#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?
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?
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.
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.
Amtmann,
Der Begriff "Volksgemeinschaft" der Hitlerei als Gegenteil des Ausschlusses der großen Masse von der Teilhabe???
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.
Der Begriff "Volksgemeinschaft" der Hitlerei als Gegenteil des Ausschlusses der großen Masse von der Teilhabe???
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.
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.
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 eine neue Diskussion.
Meistdiskutiert
Wertpapier | Beiträge | |
---|---|---|
119 | ||
74 | ||
51 | ||
49 | ||
37 | ||
37 | ||
34 | ||
33 | ||
32 | ||
32 |
Wertpapier | Beiträge | |
---|---|---|
31 | ||
31 | ||
29 | ||
29 | ||
29 | ||
28 | ||
26 | ||
26 | ||
24 | ||
23 |