Site Presented By
Monday, Nov 23, 2009
Enron lied to its employees, imagine that! "Let them freeze" was the attitude of Texas energy companies during a fuel crisis in the northeast. I'm sure the employees watching Enron stock prices during the gouging of California ratepayers were thrilled.
Unlike victims of raids on their pension funds during the last Republican administration, Enron employees had a choice. They didn't have to participate in the Enron 401K. The real victims are non-employee stockholders.
Anyone who expects the rich in Texas to be held accountable is in for a rude awakening. Look at the double murder trial of Cullen Davis -- although identified by three eyewitnesses he was acquitted -- one juror stated that "rich people just don't do things like that."
-- John Boydstun
Enron really must have done a PR job on its employees. Sorry, but if I worked for Christ himself, I would never labor under the illusion that management had my best interests in mind. The problem lies in the attitude (one that I thought had passed away long ago along with my Chrysler devotee grandfather) that any given employee was more than fodder for the corporate machine. How could these people be so naive? To "live, sleep and eat Enron" tells me that these people were their own worst enemy, not the jackals at Enron. Enron was just cashing in; since when was big business about anything more than that?
-- Sarah Parviz
Oh, we are a nation of victims, aren't we? A couple of grossly overweight whiny-asses and we are supposed to "feel their pain." Goddamn, how would we ever have won World War II with a national mindset like we have today? World War II was the most serious event in modern history. Ask any Jew.
-- Dan Pope
I have an idea. In order to dispel any thoughts of impropriety in investigating this company, let's have both political parties (75 percent Republicans, with Bushie the largest recipient) return all the monies they received from Enron and then, perhaps, we could use the funds to start to restitute the losses of the employees from the time their stocks were frozen.
-- Adela Hall
Please name an energy company (other than PG&E and SC Edison, as to point three) that would not also agree with the points illustrated in the following passage:
"We know that Enron essentially shaped the Bush administration's energy policy, with its pro-drilling slant, bias against conservation and reluctance to intervene in California's electricity crisis."
I did not note where the author explained how we "know" that information.
"We know that Enron essentially engineered the removal of a chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission whose policies it disliked and had him replaced with a long-time Texas ally who could be expected to be more friendly to its interests."
Or the interests of all big business proponents. Oh, wait, isn't that the administration that was elected? Again, how do we "know" these things?
I grant you that you probably know a great deal that I do not know, but the role of journalism is to share that knowledge through reporting -- not ask me to take your word on it!
-- Joseph G. McCarthy
One name I keep hearing in your articles about the Enron scandal is Wendy Gramm, wife of soon-to-be-retired Sen. Phil Gramm. When he decided to retire, I vividly remember, he said that he had come to Washington to do some things and, remarkably, he'd accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish. This was his reason for leaving, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who raised an eyebrow when he said it.
In light of his wife's intimate involvement with Enron and the numerous contributions he himself has received from Ken Lay, I'd love to have one of your wonderful journalists explore the real reason why ol' Phil decided to jump ship (isn't that what the rats always do?).
Thank God for Salon!
-- Gwenn Carlson
Are there no prisons? That's all I can think about every time I see a news article or TV story about Enron. Dickens' Scrooge would have jailed the poor. I say, jail the rich: the criminal rich who gave Bush cash, bought access to his government and reaped his tax cuts.
Bush and Cheney have hidden behind executive privilege to avoid revealing who got in to write Cheney's energy policy. We now know why they've been scared. Enron, the largest single shareholder in George W. Bush, danced at Cheney's party six times. They're now caught up in a scandal ordinary people can understand: The bosses cashed in their chips and prevented the workers from protecting their retirement funds.
Now Bush claims he knew nothing. Enron wasn't the only campaign contributing company at Cheney's secret meetings. As Arlo Guthrie asked Richard Nixon, in his song "Presidential Rag," "If you didn't know about that one, then what else don't you know?" Are there no prisons?
-- Jim Carl
The Democrats are wasting their time to connect Bush with Enron. Bush had nothing to do with Enron, he was not informed about Enron, he was OUT OF THE LOOP.
-- Ferenc Hutterer, M.D.
This piece is opinionated and biased. The author distorts the facts in order to make a case for regulating the energy markets. The real cause for the collapse wasn't the rise of a free market for energy, but that Enron attempted to monopolize that market, with the help of political protection, at the expense of energy producers and energy consumers (municipal utilities). The energy "shortage" in California was not caused by free-wheeling competition, but by onerous state regulatory laws that continue to limit the prices that municipal utilities can charge their customers while those utilities were forced to buy their power on the open market at market prices from a government-protected monopoly (Enron). The real damage will come when articles like these appeal to an age-old populist impulse in American society to "get the fat cats" at the expense of free markets that are allowed to work for the benefit of all.
-- Larry Siden
The critical framework for this article and most of the Enron-Bush articles on your site and elsewhere is flawed. It presupposes that the Republican party pushed the deregulation of energy markets because Enron donated to the party. The causality is actually the reverse. Enron donated to the Republican party because they believe (and the facts support) that deregulation of all markets results in lower prices for consumers. One need only look at the history of the Republican party to see that its support of deregulation pre-dates Enron's donations (it also pre-dates the birth of President Bush). If one wishes to make a case that Enron bought favors from the Republicans, then one must show that Enron received government benefits that its competitors did not also receive. The Bush administration's refusal to use governmental influence to prevent a bankruptcy clearly shows that Enron did not get special favors. You would be much better off reserving your moral outrage for Bush's efforts to protect the U.S. steel industry. These efforts are forcing every American to subsidize steel company shareholders, bankers and workers.
-- Andrew Cueva
In the American political consciousness this Enron fiasco is a great opportunity for those who believe in a return to democracy for the people (rather than the current democracy for the large campaign contributing corporations) to aggressively make noise about campaign finance reform. Making Enron a symbol of what is wrong with corporate America and its out-of-control influence on political legislation (i.e., Cheney's energy policy or Bush's economic stimulus package) is what news agencies should currently be focusing on. Make that those few news sources independent of these mega-corporation's influence or ownership. I guess that is the uncontrollable power of the modern McWorld; these days most people don't know how to, or even care to, access good information. The media keeps Americans entertained with the trivial nonsense that passes for news, and Americans don't recognize the erosion of their democracy.
In the American political consciousness the book "Jihad v. McWorld" could be the poster book for campaign finance reform; maybe Salon.com (being independent of corporate ownership) should increase this awareness of the current erosion of American democracy.
-- Pat Laughlin
Mr. Rosenberg's article seems to assume that all politicians have to carefully vet the balance sheets, income statements, and corporate structures of any company who might give money to their campaign. If they fail to identify potential improprieties, after all, they are held liable by our ever-vigilant press!
I am a Democrat born and bred, but I feel criticizing the Bush administration because Enron blew up is just wrong. Blame them for allowing too much corporate access (which was not specific to Enron, though Enron was certainly one of the best-connected companies to the Bush White House), or blame the current campaign finance system, but the Bushies didn't do anything here that Clinton didn't do for the trial lawyers, or that any political party doesn't try to do for its allies.
-- Stephen Hope
Isn't it odd that the TV media has spent months downplaying any Bush scandal? The mantra seems to often be, "Well, at least he doesn't have a girlfriend in the Oval Office." I say bring on the girls. At least for the last 8 years people were prosperous, we were not at war and crime and drugs were dropping.
Check out things now. We are now in a deep recession with the potential of unemployment hitting 6.8 percent. We are spending billions to turn big rocks into little rocks and have nobody to show for it but that poor stupid disrespectful kid Walker and the wacko shoe bomber who was caught by the passengers. Crime is increasing at an alarming rate and kids are smoking, drinking and using more drugs. We are not allowed by executive order to investigate or even view the dealings of the Reagan papers. And Bush has buried his own dealings as governor in his Papa's library. Frightening.
The heck with the dignity in the Oval Office. Give us back our civil rights, freedom of speech and allow us to gripe about our politicians without worry of the Feds showing up on our doorstep. GIVE US BACK OUR DIGNITY!
-- Gayle Stream
All the pundits (and Salon readers) who are claiming that the Bush administration has broken no laws and has behaved ethically by not acting on requests for action by Enron are missing the point.
Get it straight, folks: Enron executives, knowing their corporation was going down the tubes, contacted not one but two Cabinet departments seeking assistance. No, they didn't get it, but that's not the issue. The issue is what the Bush administration officials who were contacted should have done: that is, alert the SEC and the public (and, perhaps, the IRS) that all was not as it appeared with Enron, that its public financial reports apparently were not to be trusted and that perhaps laws or regulations had been flouted.
At the very least, such an action might have prevented many of the losses suffered by Enron investors, including employees.
No, so far as we can tell, Bush administration officials have broken no laws. That doesn't mean the course of action they chose was ethical or right. That doesn't mean they haven't violated their oaths of office and the public trust. And it certainly doesn't mean they should remain on the government payroll.
-- Lex Alexander
I see this morning that Salon has devoted about seven articles to the collapse of the Enron corporation. A sure sign that the magazine believes it's picked up the scent of serious scandal, one that will allow it to be first hound to corner the chief farmer of capitalist porcines, President Bush.
I've not read such excited journalistic baying since Salon took umbrage over the results of the Florida voting returns during the presidential election. That fracas even generated a secondary hunt by the magazine intended to tree Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state. Both hunts barked up the wrong tree.
Undaunted, Salon later hoped to bring discredit on the president by its extended and ongoing commentary on the behavior of the president's daughters, both found guilty of dreadful misconduct involving drinking alcoholic beverages, I believe, while under the legal age.
Then there was the rather halfhearted barking Salon kept up during the early days of the Bush administration about the president's intelligence. This was a very foolish attack--it could so easily have got out of hand. The combined subject of politicians and intelligence is like gas warfare -- very risky -- the breeze may change and blow the poison back against your own side. One's own politicians are at risk, in other words. Even the writers at Salon soon twigged to this and their barking ceased.
Still, aside from the entertainment of it all, I must give the magazine's writers credit for sheer doggedness.
-- James Bennett
This Enron mess has me quite upset.
To think that a house of cards was being built by standard operating corporate practice leads me to question the entire business system. At first the issue was not of enough importance to follow. Anyone should know by now that the stock mania of the last decade was going to end in the same way as did Japan's and Indonesia's. But story after story continues to detail a context of criminal behavior that borders on nothing short of abuse.
I wonder if any of the Enron top executives ever worked a day in their lives. The good old boy network is totally responsible for this. Worst of all, Anderson is showing itself to be just as culpable. Firing all employees who followed orders is more than I can stand.
They, Bill Gates and all of the Enron top execs should be put on an Alabama chain gang!
Please keep reporting this story.
-- Lloyd Little
