Enron, yet again

Great Debates
1

Over in this thread, the OP has been terrifically hijacked by an Enron discussion. I’m opening this thread to continue the Enron discussion without further hijacking the original OP.

So, without further ado:

The argument is that private communications facilitate honesty from an advice-giver. That is a sound argument. There is tension between that sound argument and the equally-sound point that government should be transparent.

Cheney’s point is that he doesn’t want to discourage people from giving him advice in favor of policies that may be unpopular, but nontheless good for the country. Again, that is a sound argument. And again, that argument must be balanced against the public’s right to see how government policy is formed.

I think that balance will be resolved in favor of disclosing who, specifically, acted in an advisory capacity to the energy policy folks, but will stop short of requiring substantive disclosure of the content of that advice.

Oddly, you claim that non-campaign contributors were “shut out” without having access to the list of people who advised the energy panel. Evidently, you don’t need Cheney to disclose anything: you’ve got a crystal ball that tells yo everything.

Cite? Citey McCite Cite?**

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read on this topic to date. Enron officials may have bilked investors, it’s true, but how exactly would their advice on energy policy be “corrupt”? I mean, they recommend policy X, and provide reasons A, B and C for those policies. The policy is either approved, modified or rejected. What difference does the moral fiber of the people recommending the policy make on the soundness of the policy in question?

Not to mention that you have no evidence that Bush, Cheney or anyone else was aware of the corruption at Enron. Do you expect them to have crystal balls, too?

Finally, you (again) claim that “Cheney didn’t get a balance of views.” How, exactly, do you know that? **

I fail to see how. A small army of Wall Street analysts, portfolio managers, and members of the financial press were taken it, too. Bush didn’t have a chance to review Andersen’s audit papers or any such thing. It isn’t like Enron officials wore signs around their necks with “CON MAN” in big letters.**

Really? Then why didn’t they give favors when they really counted? Enron asked for executive intervention on their credit rating downgrade, and failed to get it. That downgrade sealed Enron’s fate, because it triggered default provisions in Enron’s debt agreements. **

Maybe. They were wrong. So what?**

Yes, and when people say “Enron gave X dollars to Bush” they mean “Enron higher-ups pooled their money and gave it to Bush.”

2

On the radio this morning, Paul Harvey went into detail about how close Kenneth Lay was to the President and Vice President. He visited them several times in the White House He gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to them and their party.

The punch line was that he was referreing to President Clinton.

3

Good points, Dewey and december. Remove the political rhetoric, as Enron liked to buy politicians on both sides of the aisle, and it comes down to a corporation rotted with corruption at the very top levels. Hopefully, some good comes out of this, either in the form of meaningful accounting reform, meaningful campaign contribution reform, and/or meaningful 401K reform. I’m not holding my breath.

4

december, as usual, you’re lazily accepting the word of your favorite equally-lazy conservative commentators. Don’t you ever get tired of having facts shown to you instead?

This may help explain the latest lie you’ve swallowed whole. The president involved is indeed Poppy Bush. The comparisons are quite striking to the election-year GOP spams taking the old list of Dan Quayle quotes and changing the name to Al Gore instead. Did you swallow that too?
{b]Dewey**, do you really not see a difference between asking for advice from parties that may have their own interests, and letting them write policy? Do you really think the interests of Big Oil and the country as a whole are so synonymous that there should be no questions asked? Look up the meaning of “corrupt” (december likes doing that) before you dismiss it so casually, m’kay? You’re confusing the internal corruption at Enron with the corruption of the administration’s policymaking procedures, which was Tejota’s point - no wonder you think it’s silly to compare them, because it is.

Re that silly, inappropriately-dismissive remark of yours about knowing who was there: It has been made clear from other sources who wasn’t there, by process of elimination. For instance, Bush said the Sierra Club had a say, when they weren’t even told about the meetings and their conclusions until later - that’s called a “lie” for short.

5

It also facilitates corruption, and prevents critical feedback and review. But most importantly, it can generally lead to distrust in ones government. Why should unpopular opinions be protected with anonymity? In other words, I am not quite ready to accept that it is a sound argument.

What is unpopular about advice that is good for the country? Wouldn’t advice that is currently unpopular need open and honest debate to determine if it is good for the country? How does anonymity help (national defense excepted)?

Which, as I understand it, is all that the GAO’s lawsuit is requesting, and that Cheney is disputing.

And you thought Tejota’s comment was the “dumbest things I’ve read on this topic to date”? You are right that it doesn’t impact the soundness of the policy, but it sure could lead one to conclude otherwise.

Remember, Dubya campaigned on bringing honor and integrity back to the White House. He set himself up for a higher standard than Clinton.

Well, I don’t know about Tejota’s crystal ball, but isn’t that an obvious conclusion to reach based on the evidence that Cheney is unwilling to disclose the list? I mean, if he did get balanced views, wouldn’t it be to his political advantage to wave it in our face?

So you agree that they were good conmen. I won’t go so far as to say that Cheney and Bush should have known, but now that we do, doesn’t it call into question the advice on national policy they offered? Is that so unreasonable?

I won’t go so far as to accuse Cheney and Dubya of wrongdoing. But where there is smoke, there is fire.

And, as I argued in a previous (now lost) thread, I think it is a dangerous political game for Dubya to play. Sure, his approval ratings are exceptionally high. So was Clinton’s when the special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Whitewater. The end result was Lewinsky.

To the heart of the matter:

Many in the energy industry had expressed concern over the regulatory exemption received by the energy derivatives trade - an industry Enron created and nearly monopolized. The resulting National Energy policy was mum on the regulatory issue, allowing the status quo, but did praise the importance of the energy derivatives markets and their critical contribution to efficient markets. That policy decision (or better, indecision) benefited Enron (or, at least the executives, I don’t think the shareholders benefited).

6

Just a quick note before I move on to the comments directed at me: the article only says Lay never spent the night at the Clinton White House. Well, OK, so what? That doesn’t change the fact that the Clinton White House aided Enron in developing the Dabhol, India power plant and issued FERC orders favorable to Enron; Enron’s contributions to Clinton were substantial. To focus on the Lincoln bedroom thing is to miss the forest for the trees: yeah, some pundits should’ve gotten their details right, but their overall point is still accurate.**

Here is the Cheney Energy Task Force Report. On the 5th page (you have to use the “entire report” link) there is a list of government officials comprising the task force. Do you really think that all those folks just went out and played golf and let energy companies “write policy”? Give me a break. Or at least a cite.**

No, and I never said anything approaching the notion that “no questions should be asked.” Indeed, in this very thread I make the point that some information should be public, but that there are competing (and valid) reasons for keeping some materials private.**

A. I am not december.

B. corrupt:

  1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
  2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
  3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
  4. Archaic. Tainted; putrid. **

No, you’re the one making that error. Otherwise, why single out Enron’s contribution to the task force? Why not any other energy company? Or all the contributing energy companies collectively?

The answer is simple: you’re trying to ensure that, on some level, people associate “Enron” with “corruption” (that link being made because of the things leading to Enron’s collapse), and “Enron” with “Bush” (that link being made because Enron contributed to the task force), and that they then make the leap that “Bush” = “corruption.”

It’s a cute rhetorical trick, but it is logically flawed. Enron contributed to the report in the same way that all the other, non-accounting-scandal-tainted energy companies contributed. Bush should not be tainted with the accounting chicanery that went on at Enron.**

  1. Cite?

  2. Just because some environmental entities may have been excluded doesn’t mean they all were.

7

Like I’ve said repeatedly, there are two values in tension (unfettered advice vs. transparent government) here. The answer isn’t to throw out one in favor of the other, but to come to a balanced position where both values are served as best as they can.

I would be considerably more nervous if the Task Force Report represented actual, enforceable law. It doesn’t. It’s a bunch of policy recommendations, none of which have been implemented yet. There is ample room for discussion and debate of those recommendations in the weeks and months to come.**

I’ve seen conflicting reports on exactly what it is that the GAO is looking for. If anyone knows where a copy of their complaint can be located, I’d appreciate it.

Having said that, I can understand, from a tactical point of view, the aggressive stance taken by the Vice President’s office: he doesn’t want to set a precedent for willy-nilly disclosure, so he’s going to fight on every little thing. I suspect that if we could magically guarantee that future presidents wouldn’t have to disclose anything but names of attendees, there wouldn’t be the need to fight quite so hard.**

Then the person so concluding is foolish. Policy ideas can and should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of who suggests them.

(If Ken Lay had been around in the 50’s and had proposed the Interstate Highway system, would you conclude that the policy idea was not sound?)**

It might be. It might also be a more principled stand to protect the integrity of executive branch communications.
**

Well, yes, given that the product of their (and others) recommendations are available freely for comment. If you want to question the policy, question the policy, not the people who had input on the policy.**

Meaning what, exactly? Can you make a specific charge, or are you just going to wave about glittering generalities like “where there is smoke, there is fire?”
**

A couple of points:

  1. How, exactly, does a report that came out in May 2001 and did not carry the force of law “benefit” Enron or anyone else for that matter?

  2. Regulation of derivatives markets and derivative products falls properly to the SEC and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. It is not under the purview of the Department of Energy. Why would you expect a report dealing with energy production and distribution to cover that issue in any kind of detail?

8

Elvis, your insults are particularly inappropriate, since I was entirely correct. It is true that Lay spent the night at the White House with Bush 41. However, as I said, he also visited the WH under Clinton and he did give Clinton lots of money. I didn’t even add the fact that he played a round of golf with Clinton, because I was merely quoting Paul Harvey.

It’s quite clear that Lay made determined efforts to suck up to Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43. The evidence shows that he was more successful at getting close to the first two. (Although, given more time, who knows?)

9

Agreed. And in most government proceedings, laws have been developed around open meetings and open records. I only argue that the balance is much closer to disclosure, and much less to anonymity.

Are you suggesting that the administration’s policies are irrelevent, or at least, unimportant?

All the official stuff can be found here. More interesting background on the precedent issue is here.

You better read up before making such bold statements.

And if Clinton got a blow job from a White House intern, you would agree that it should have no bearing on his ability to set policy for the country? Or better, that if knowing what we know now, you wouldn’t look back at Ken Lay’s policy recommendations more closely?

Oh! Withholding information from the congressional arm charged with Executive oversite protects the integrity of the Executive branch. Please. It smacks of cronyism, if not outright wrongdoing. That’s a bullshit argument, related to Executive Privilege, which doesn’t apply to the VP.

My “smoke/fire” comment only was used to setup my point that I think they are playing a dangerous game - that Whitewater was only smoke, but it could open doors to finding fire.

I don’t have to prove that it did, only that it could have. Are you disputing that it could have?

Actually, it doesn’t, although perhaps it should. That was and is an open policy question. And are you really asserting that the energy derivatives trading business is unrelated to the Department of Energy or the National Energy Policy? The NEP doesn’t deal only with production and distribution, but even if it did, the energy derivatives market certainly met that criteria. Or are you suggesting that the National Energy Policy only deals with issues under the authority of the Department of Energy?

10

December, are you actually arguing that Bush and Cheney’s ethics are at least no worse than Clinton’s?

OK, I’ll give you that.

11

That isn’t what I said. I said “It’s [the report] a bunch of policy recommendations, none of which have been implemented yet.” The point being that nothing in that report represents anything that is actually policy yet. No legislation, regulation or executive orders have to date come into force as a result of the task force report.**

What, pray tell, is wrong with recognizing an aggressive tactic to prevent adverse precedent for what it is?

Incidentally, while the GAO lawsuit may not be seeking substantive information, their intial requests certainly did. Check out the July 18 entry on the chronology on the GAO page you provided. **

I couldn’t possibly care less about who Clinton allowed to slick his willy. I do care tremendously about perjury and subornation of perjury. But even that fact doesn’t change my view of Clinton’s policies. I can evaluate, say, Clinton’s foreign policy on its own merits without regard to the charges of perjury attaching to Clinton. The policy stands or falls on its own, without regard to the person who proposed it.

Same thing applies here. I note that this afternoon Arthur Andersen is being indicted on criminal charges. Lay may well be next. But any policy he proposed deserves to be heard on its own merits, regardless of whatever other chicanery Lay may have been involved in. **

You left out a key word. I said it protected the integrity of exectutive branch communications, which is undoubtedly true. Greater anonymity prevents self-censorship by one’s advisors. And again, there is a strong competing value of government transparacy at stake. Both concerns are valid. **

Well, yes, quite frankly. Why would it? It didn’t generate any more revenue for Enron; its recommendations hadn’t even become enforceable yet. Why would a bunch of recommendations that might, at some unforeseeable point in the future and likely in very different form, become law benefit anyone? Certainly the market didn’t react favorably to Enron upon the report’s release; if it was such good news for them, you’d expect an uptick in the stock price. **

Allow me to clarify: while much of derivative trading is unregulated, derivatives are securities and thus properly regulated by the SEC; they also can involve futures which falls under the ambit of the CFTC. (Certainly the SEC and CFTC regulate many types of derivatives, just not the kind that Enron helped to innovate). Certainly the DOE is ill-equipped to regulate them – it just isn’t their area of expertise (the underlying product is, of course, but not the securitization of that product). **

The NEP really only deals with production, distribution and conservation. The energy derivatives market, while useful for matching supply with demand, doesn’t deal with the actual, physical production, generation, transportation and use of energy.

12

Please tell me that you understand that the National Energy Policy is actual policy. And then I will grant you that it is not law.

You didn’t do your homework, did you? Let me help, from the article previously linked:

Is that the precedent you were refering to? Or are you referring to “willy-nilly”, when the details the GAO has sued to find were nothing more than list of names and expenditures, generally speaking.

And in this case, the policy to not regulate Enron’s energy derivatives trading may have allowed the largest bankruptcy in American history.

Granted. It also protects their asses. Some integrity.

Or less of a drop than it would have taken otherwise. Funny things, those markets. The point is, without oversight, Enron may have been able to keep their shell game going longer, had their debt not overwhelmed them.

Go look at the NEP, (pdf, sorry) Summary of Recommendations, Chapter One, first bullet, and then tell me that the NEP has nothing to do with regulating aspects of the energy business. At minimum, the report should have recommended that the energy derivative market fall under regulatory oversight by the CFTC (do you want to talk about California last summer?). That’s hindsight, mind you, but Cheney had the “best and brightest” in the room. I certainly wish I know what they said on this issue. Perhaps you are comfortable in your blissful ignorance.

13

My, my, we’ve entered the sophistry zone. Call it whatever you want, the point is none of its recommendations have yet been implemented. Whatever label you want to attach to it, the report is nothing but recommendations at this point.**

Dean’s statement tells us nothing. We’d have to know if the GAO has ever made this kind of demand on this kind of task force in the past thirty years, and the response to that demand, to determine if there is established precedent on this issue. I suspect there hasn’t been. Furthermore, the VP has reason to be concerned that the GAO is ultimately pursuing more than just lists of names: as I pointed out in my last post, their initial inquiry was far broader.

As I’ve said before, I suspect that the list of names will have to be produced, but staking out an aggressive position on disclosure matters may well be an effective tactic to avoid setting a poor precedent. Consider if Cheney had just handed over everything asked for the initial request. That would set a precedent for future GAO inquiries of future executive branch processes: any reluctance to disclose would be met with “but Cheney disclosed back in 2001 with no complaints.” Fighting disclosure questions now may forestall those arguments in the future.**

  1. The “policy” of not regulating certain derivative products certainly predates the NEP (and, indeed, the Bush administration).

  2. Even if the NEP had contained suggestions to regulate energy derivative instruments, those suggestions, like the rest of the NEP, would not yet be implemented, and so would not have affected Enron’s collapse one whit.

  3. Goverment regulation (or the lack thereof) of energy derivatives is not to blame for Enron’s collapse. Indeed, the partnerships that triggered Enron’s collapse were not related per se to trading in energy futures (one, Project Braveheart, involved a broadband deal with Blockbuster Inc., and the second, Project Whitewing, created to buy and resell certain assets in India, Turkey, Spain and Latin America, and to which Enron transferred liabilities to make them off-balance sheet). What put the nail in the coffin for Enron was a debt downgrade (resulting from an earnings restatement) that triggered a $690 billion guarantee of Whitewing. That triggered another downgrade that caused them to be in default on other obligations.

  4. Related to Item 3 above, but an unfettered energy derivatives market is a good thing. It allows the market to better communicate energy demand to energy suppliers. What is a bad thing is making bad business choices and then hiding them in off-balance sheet special purpose entities. Enron was the big dog in this industry, no question, but plenty of other players are doing fine (and I’m sure they are scrambling to be sure their balance sheets are properly consolidated so they can avoid Enron’s fate if things do go south).**

You are aware that integrity can mean “an unimpaired condition” as well as “adherence to a moral code,” right? Or are you just trying to be cute?**

What is needed is better accounting standards to govern SPE’s and severe penalties for companies and accounting firms who abuse those standards. Enron got away with shifting things off-balance sheet that it shouldn’t have because a whole lot of people looked the other way. Unless you want the SEC to conduct audits of all US companies (something I guarantee it lacks the manpower to do), that is the solution to the Enron problem.**

I never said it didn’t speak to the “energy business.” I just said that derivatives trading regulation, while related to the energy world, is beyond the scope of the report. (Indeed, Enron-like derivatives trading encompasses far more than just energy; for example, Enron was starting to trade broadband and pulp paper.)**

I’m not sure what derivatives trading has to do with California’s problems (which stemmed from deregulating wholesale markets while leaving retail markets regulated, from preventing additional generating capacity from being built in the state, and from forbidding power suppliers from entering into long-term energy contracts). Indeed, had California power suppliers been able to make use of futures contracts (instead of buying on the spot market), the problem wouldn’t have been as bad as it was.

But that is neither here nor there. The report doesn’t talk about derivative regulation because that is beyond the scope of the report. The report was designed to address (in the words of that paragraph you cite to) problems of supply, generation, and use. Derivatives are, at best, tangential to that stated goal.

14

Is there some sort of accusation against the Bush Administration in it’s dealings with Enron? A real one, I mean. I’ve read countless columns and op/eds that ask “What are they hiding?” and claim secrecy, and Waxman’s insistence that in 17 specific points the National Energy Policy benefits Enron. But in at least one instance, they didn’t get what they’d really hoped for. Is there a clear need to have this information other than to provide debate fodder and grandstanding? And to save face in the power struggle? (I also asked this about Clinton’s Heath Care Task Force.)

I know - GAO, public’s right to know and all. I just assume all Congressional offices are partisan undertakings and need convincing that the GAO’s motives are so pure.
(About the ‘private conversations’, that’s an easy one - which set of information would you rather have access to when evaluating a business, the on-the-record or off? Would anyone want to raise an issue that will eventually be turned over to Congress and probably leaked? I wouldn’t.)

15

I continue to be amused at how some conservatives seem to think that the fact that Clinton was also influenced by Enron is somehow a confirmation of their worldview.

You know, if you read a little more diversity of views, you might find that there is actually a very healthy part of the political spectrum to the left of Bill Clinton. And for us, the fact that Clinton was also in the sway of these corporate moneybags is even more proof of the need for things like campaign finance reform (preferably in the form of more radical reforms like complete public financing of campaigns) and full disclosure on the part of government officials on who is influencing their policy decisions.

Then government could be used more often as a tool of the people to reign in the excessive power that wealth confers on people rather than being used as a tool of those with wealth and power to further their own ends.

16

jshore: did it ever occur to you that if you’re going to formulate an energy policy, it’s probably a good idea to talk to the people who, y’know, actually produce and deliver energy? :rolleyes:

17

Man, I havent seen any Front Page stories in the LA Times about Enron for a couple of weeks now. They must have figured out that it was Clinton who was doing Enron favors for money, not Bush!

18

I was about to join in the pile-on and add my two cents, because I agree with your sentiment Dewey. However, after rereading jshore’s post several times, I’m of the opinion that is neither what is said nor likely inferred. Specifically

does not say don’t speak with them, just be very open and up-front about it.

I don’t agree with his sentiments, but that’s a different point.

19

Good thing since he played as Gerald Ford’s partner in a republicans vs democrats game.

Dewey, funny how it is only since the fall of enron that those on the right feel a need to explain away the close ties to the bush administration. Those on the left were warning that Bush was in Enron’s pocket before the election.

Your explanation of the california energy crisis fails to answer why it suddenly ended with the defection of Jeffords. One day there were rolling blackouts, the next day nothing. Evidence continues to mount that Enron fraudulantly exploited the deregulated environment of energy trading to artificially drive up power rates for consumers. This was a sleazy company and Bush refused to rein them in until the senate was in a position to start investigating the suituation.

Yes, there were ties to the Clinton administration and support for legitimate, though sometimes misguided, energy projects. The difference is that republican ties are all related to areas where Enron descended into sleeze. The lack of control on derivative trading, energy trading, offshore banking and reporting status of subsiduaries are all republican initiatives.

20

And did it ever occur to you that those people may advise you to do things in the name of “good policy” which…wow, what a coincidence!!..just happen to coincide with what is in their own self-interest!?!

Sure, talk to them. But also talk to experts with less self-interest at stake.

Of course, noone would be nearly as bothered by the fact that Cheney had talked to his buddies in the oil industry if it didn’t look so much like they had written most of the Administration’s energy policy!