Can it Get any Worse?

“Subj: NYTimes.com Article: Steps to Wealth
Date: 7/18/2002 4:34:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time



Steps to Wealth

July 16, 2002
By PAUL KRUGMAN






Why are George W. Bush's business dealings relevant? Given
that his aides tout his "character," the public deserves to
know that he became wealthy entirely through patronage and
connections. But more important, those dealings foreshadow
many characteristics of his administration, such as its
obsession with secrecy and its intermingling of public
policy with private interest.

As the unanswered questions about Harken Energy pile up -
what's in those documents the White House won't release?
Who was the mystery buyer of Mr. Bush's stock? - let me now
turn to how Mr. Bush, who got by with a lot of help from
his friends in the 1980's, became wealthy in the 1990's. He
invested $606,000 as part of a syndicate that bought the
Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989 - borrowing the money
and repaying the loan with the proceeds from his Harken
stock sale - then saw that grow to $14.9 million over the
next nine years. What made his investment so successful?

First, the city of Arlington built the Rangers a new
stadium, on terms extraordinarily favorable to Mr. Bush's
syndicate, eventually subsidizing Mr. Bush and his partners
with more than $150 million in taxpayer money. The city was
obliged to raise taxes substantially as a result. Soon
after the stadium was completed, Mr. Bush ran successfully
for governor of Texas on the theme of self-reliance rather
than reliance on government.

Mr. Bush's syndicate eventually resold the Rangers, for
triple the original price. The price-is-no-object buyer was
a deal maker named Tom Hicks. And thereby hangs a tale.

The University of Texas, though a state institution, has a
large endowment. As governor, Mr. Bush changed the rules
governing that endowment, eliminating the requirements to
disclose "all details concerning the investments made and
income realized," and to have "a well-recognized
performance measurement service" assess investment results.
That is, government officials no longer had to tell the
public what they were doing with public money, or allow an
independent performance assessment. Then Mr. Bush
"privatized" (his term) $9 billion in university assets,
transferring them to a nonprofit corporation known as
Utimco that could make investment decisions behind closed
doors.

In effect, the money was put under the control of Utimco's
chairman: Tom Hicks. Under his direction, at least $450
million was invested in private funds managed by Mr.
Hicks's business associates and major Republican Party
donors. The managers of such funds earn big fees. Due to
Mr. Bush's change in the rules, these investments were
hidden from public view; an employee of Utimco who alerted
university auditors was summarily fired. Even now, it's
hard to find out how these investments turned out, though
they seem to have done quite badly.

Eventually Mr. Hicks's investment style created a public
furor, and he did not seek to retain his position at Utimco
when his term expired in 1999.

One last item: Mr. Bush, who put up 1.8 percent of the
Rangers syndicate's original capital, was entitled to about
$2.3 million from that sale. But his partners voluntarily
gave up some of their share, and Mr. Bush received 12
percent of the proceeds - $14.9 million. So a group of
businessmen, presumably with some interest in government
decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift.
Shouldn't that have raised a few eyebrows?

All of this showed Mr. Bush's characteristic style. First
there's the penchant for secrecy, for denying the public
information about decisions taken in its name. So it's no
surprise that the proposed Homeland Security Department
will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and from
whistle-blower protection.

Then there's the conversion of institutions traditionally
insulated from politics into tools for rewarding your
friends and reinforcing your political control. Yesterday
the University of Texas endowment; today the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission; tomorrow those Social Security
"personal accounts"?

Finally, there's the indifference to conflicts of interest.
In Austin, Governor Bush saw nothing wrong with profiting
personally from a deal with Tom Hicks; in Washington, he
sees nothing wrong with having the Pentagon sign what look
like sweetheart deals with Dick Cheney's former employer
Halliburton.

So the style of a future Bush administration was easily
predictable, given Mr. Bush's career history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/16/opinion/16KRUG.html?ex=1028035063&ei=1&en=db79e432d6d3152d



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company”

“Curiouser and curiouser.”

“So after the SEC investigates this 10 year old issue and publishes a report that finds no fault with the George W. Bush, liberals still misstate the facts and fabricate theories to discredit the President.

Not surprising to me.”

“Sounds too familiar, doesn't it?”

“I understood that even Pres. Clinton had moments of weakness.

The measure of a man is how he faces he mistakes.

Let's see what happens.

Clinton committed a crime that would have landed me in prison. But, he was above that, though judges said he was guilty.”

“I saw that too MaryPhyl. I wonder why they weren't publishing that article when he was running for office. It's a little late to be digging up dirt on him now.”

“"So after the SEC investigates this 10 year old issue and publishes a report that finds no fault with the George W. Bush, liberals still misstate the facts and fabricate theories to discredit the President.

Not surprising to me."
bacpac
08:01:59 PM
07/18/02


However, bacpac, if the Democrats hire a special prosecutor, spend $270 Million to investigate every thing the Bush family had done in their entire life, conduct an 8 year crusade with the sole purpose of digging up dirt and publish every little finding at every turn, we might find out that Bush is guilty of more than have a strong libido and a loose fly.”

“Amen Chili!!!!”

“Actually these things did get some media attention when Bush was running. This story (from Oct. 2000) suggests that the media was simply setting Dubya up for a fall. Let him get in and then make a fortune selling scandal sheets. Not a bad business plan.”

“Foolish BS and sour grapes.”

“I’d just like to juxtapose these two:

I bet the line for Companies looking for corrupt Government support is kinda short these days."
- bacpac
12:57:45 PM
01/30/02

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/200/nation/Report_says_that_Harken_sought_influence_in_buying_Bush_firm%2B.shtml" target="_blank">Report says that Harken sought influence in buying Bush firm”

“KY... Nah, you wouldn't. Perjury is nearly never prosecuted, it's just used as a threat to get people to testify against their grandmothers, <G>.


Hey Chili --- exactly what I was saying (only in shorthand, *grin*).”

“Yep Tilt. I think a witch hunt was wrong then,,,,I think it is wrong now.

However, it is funny how the people who spent a lot of time justifying the Starr Commission aren't on the bandwagon to create one now.”

“Witchhunt??? There is proof that Enron purposely inflated energy prices in California AND faked energy shortages!

There is proof that Enron executives helped to form U.S. energy policy

There is proof that Enron supported Bush heavily and ex-Enron execs are in high ranking positions now

There was NEVER any evidence or proof that Clinton recieved illegal loans from the McDougals, the Clinton's and McDougals clearly lost money on Whitewater, the McDougals couldn't repay their fraudulent loans. That had nothing to do with the Clintons, but WE still had to pay for investigation after investigation until they caught old slick willy in a lie about cheating on his wife!

I'm an independent, and this Bush guy is a sneaking, cheating, influence pedaling, AWOL piece of crap!”

“Don't get me wrong donman. Where the evidence begins to pile up, I think it deserves to be looked at very carefully. I just don't support turning into a witchhunt in regard to "anything" that can be found.”

“But how do you really feel about Bush, donman? LOL”

“For sure, Chili.

But ya know what they say: "He who lives by the sword..."

Now that the shoe might be on the other foot (too many metaphors!!), I find the "moral" indignation of the so-called 'Clinton Haters' quite amusing.

Let's just have John Ashcroft appoint a DEMOCRATIC Special Prosecutor and straighten all this out, LOL

But Congress revised the statute to limit future investigations, didn't they?”

“sorry about the rant... but I'm really sick of the Liberals are stoopid do-gooders/Conservatives are money-grubbing nazi non-sense.

I feel that both parties are spending our money to make the other party look bad so that the public is paying attention to that while politicians from both parties are ripping us off blind and getting paid by big organizations to create legislation that helps them out.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget the balanced budget amendment... it's great to try to ham-string a sitting president of the other party, but now that we are spending all of our tax money we don't need a balanced budget anymore! Oh the hypocrisy!”

“interesting, bush's "character" is called into question and the first thing out of some people's mouth is bill clinton. does clinton's egregious shortcomings somehow validate bush's actions? hardly.

why do i not respect bush? it's not because he is a republican or a conservative, it's because he never had to work for everything he has. he relies strictly on his name and connections, then has the audacity to preach about self-reliance. bush has always loved to bend the rules in his favor and parlay his actions with secrecy. bush is a hypocrite, as evidenced by harken.

i will not vote for bush in 2004. i hope sen. edwards from north carolina runs, he appears to have some ability and integrity.”

“Howard Dean in Vermont has my attention. He seems to know how to run government fairly efficiently.”

“People with ability and integrity cannot get the nomination. When the fall election rolls around it comes down to a choice between dumb and dumber. We always seem to pick dumber!”

“Not trying to stir up the conspiracy theorists but could it be that those with the money to influence the system would prefer a weak and marginalized leadership?”

“Yeah, right Violin,,,,like we really think you aren't trying to stir things up. ;)”

“Who me? *blink* *blink*”

“howard dean also has my interest, unfortunately VT is not a political heavyweight state.”

“Keep an eye out for upcoming fireworks as McCain sues the political hacks at the Federal Elections Committee to 'encourage' them to enforce the Campaign Finance Reform Act.”

“Politicians- They're all a bunch of liars and backstabbers- The fact that they all seem to have skeletons in their closets just makes them a little more human to me- As the saying goes, the only real difference between a wise man and a fool is that a fool is only allowed to make small mistakes...”

“I wasn't aware fools could make any mistakes. Cheese, how many do I get?”

“Wow, Bush is getting accused of everything. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest he did anything wrong. There is no established link between Enron and George Bush.

There has never been any evidence that George Bush used cocaine either, but that doesn't stop people from calling him a doper.

You folks need to quit promoting this fiction.”

“no established link between Enron and Bush? Who was part of the task force to set U.S. energy policy? look it up on the net

Who is the Army Secretary?

He has talked about how sad he was to lose his flight status in the Air Force, do you know why he lost his status? When the time came to get his flight physical he refused (it was during the first year they were drug testing as part of the physical)

AND when it comes to people who subscribe to any dogmatic belief whether it be religious or political it doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, faith will always come before logic”

“donman, What does one have to do with the other?

If the government were to form a task force to evaluate toys wouldn't you expect them to invite Mattel? Enron was the largest energy broker in the world. Of course they were included in the task force. That is not a smoking gun. There is no evidence that Bush, or anyone else (except maybe Anderson accounting) knew that Enron was a house of cards.

Guilt by association is one thing, but there is no association. You are basing your opinions on a myth.”

“"I?d just like to juxtapose these two:

I bet the line for Companies looking for corrupt Government support is kinda short these days."
- bacpac
12:57:45 PM
01/30/02

Report says that Harken sought influence in buying Bush firm"
Violin
12:28:54 PM
07/19/02


The article supports my positon... or didn't you get past the headline?”

“I've been tossed in jail several times on felony counts. So, don't go telling what can and can not happen.

I have first hand experience with how things ACTUALLY work.

What Clinton did was criminal. He was put into that situation because it was suspected that he would break the law.

Like I said, I respect him for nailing some of the gals, like Jennifer Flowers. Thats was probably some sweet stuff.

Lying about it, No, I don't respect that breach of law and then it being ignored, especially when several judges said he was guilty of such. Nothing was ever done about it.”

“ky you never would have gone to jail for what clinton did because as a private citizen law enforcement could not get away with the fishing expedition they did on clinton

as for bacpac, the government wasn't studying energy, they were setting government policy. To include the biggest company invites a conflict of interest.

What will it take for you to question authority? The fact that Halliburton, Enron, and Harken all used questionable or immoral accounting processes doesn't bother you?

The fact that several members of the Bush administration is under investigation by the SEC, but then again Pitt worked for Arthur Anderson and Xerox! How would you like to get investigated by someone who used to work for you? Doesn't any of this bother you at all?

So you seem to think that Anderson may have known about the bad business at Enron... Cheney has publicly thanked Anderson for their work at Halliburton...

now a former Anderson employee is heading up the investigations of Cheney and Bush... yeah there's no association there”

“Wow, Bush is getting accused of everything. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest he did anything wrong.

There has never been any evidence that George Bush used cocaine either, but that doesn't stop people from calling him a doper.

bacpac
04:35:46 PM
07/19/02

This all gets back to the point Chili touched on earlier re: witchhunts..

And I bet if the money was spent and an investigation was launched, something would turn up. But who can ever say for sure until fully investigated, eh?

I just find it amusing how just about every hardcore conservative I know says to spend the money to investigate is a waste of money (and I agree), but yet they supported raking Clinton over the coals.

Can you say hypocritical?

And no, I'm not a liberal.. If McCain runs again this year, he'll likely get my vote for what it's worth.”

“I never said we should not investigate allegations against George W. Bush. We should, they have.

Where is the crime?”

“they haven't finished yet... and the person in charge of the investigation should recuse himself or resign in the opinions of dem and reps”

“as for bacpac, the government wasn't studying energy, they were setting government policy. To include the biggest company invites a conflict of interest.

donman
06:09:36 PM
07/19/02


You have limited knowledge of business, government and their history in this country. What fantasy group of do-gooders would you expect to engage in this process? Maybe the Government should have consulted Boston Globe columists or the TT posters. Experts galore. Maybe you should talk to your local elected officials.”

“What will it take for you to question authority? The fact that Halliburton, Enron, and Harken all used questionable or immoral accounting processes doesn't bother you?

donman
06:09:36 PM
07/19/02

Of course it bothers me that these crooks are not in jail. What does that have to do with President George W. Bush?

I am the most enthusiastic supporter of criminal law that I know. Show me a crime, you screwball!”

“He who goes to bed with itchy butt, wakes up with smell fingers.

Confuscious
04:54:23 PM
04/03/869 A.D.”

“I just find it amusing how just about every hardcore conservative I know says to spend the money to investigate is a waste of money (and I agree), but yet they supported raking Clinton over the coals.

Artex
06:20:02 PM
07/19/02

"I never said we should not investigate allegations against George W. Bush. We should, they have.

Where is the crime?"
bacpac
06:39:19 PM
07/19/02

He who goes to bed with itchy butt, wakes up with smell fingers.

Confuscious
04:54:23 PM
04/03/869 A.D."

Artex
07:02:19 PM
07/19/02

That's it? That is your argument? Stinky Fingers?

I don't believe I am having this conversation.”

“Let's get a man from the heartland.

Tom Daschle”

“My fingers don't smell.. do yours?”

“I said, "I know". I did not say this about the system:

I think
I wonder
Maybe
Could be

I have been thrown in jail on felony charges for FAR less, twice.

So, don't expect any sympathy from me.

I did not the nonillions of dollar supplied by political supporters either.

Oh, an as a common man, a felony indictment means surrending ALL firearms and being unemployable. Later, one can worry about clearly their name, at their own expense, and rebuilding their rep. Ole Cliton didn't sweat any of that.”

“Artex, you are exactly on point. The ones beating the drum the loudes a few years ago are the ones who question why anyone would even dare try to investigate a President. Oh what difference but just a few short years will make.

If there is some credible evidence of guilt, then I say no one is above the law. But as far as going on a crusade to dig up dirt, what a friggin waste of money.”

“Artex, you are exactly on point. The ones beating the drum the loudes a few years ago are the ones who question why anyone would even dare try to investigate a President.

chili36
08:27:48 PM
07/19/02

I disagree. I welcome an investigation. These accusations against President Bush are absurd. Liberals consistently oppose lawful prosecution. We read it here on TT every day. There is not some magic opinion group who decides these issues. The dopers and liberals on this website are the first to oppose laws. Conservatives seek lawful freedoms.

Where did you study law?”

“You may welcome an investigation, bacpac, but several conservatives don't.”

“bacpac, you must have been asleep at the wheel when I had the long running discussion with arclite where I argued that we should enforce the law.

I am liberal. Go through all the posts and show me a pattern that supports your premise that I oppose laws. Before you start, I can save you some time by telling you it doesn't exist.

You don't really study law, bacpac. You merely learn where to find it and how to read it.”

“If being asleep at the wheel during an Arclite post is a crime, I plead guilty.

I took exception to your post as it was referenced. Politics are not black and white issues, but I see repeated anti-law references posted by liberals. I (we, anyone) do not see many (if any) supportive reference to laws on this website by Liberals.

As any refutement of your denial of culpability is predicated on my ability or desire to seek specific references to prove you culpable is beyond my present interest I forfeit and appologize.”

“You mispelled "apologize".”