Enron and The Phony Energy Crisis

[exlrrp]

Ive been watching Enron discussion of the Texas Book festival on C span lately (Thanks Laura Bush!) trying to understand the parameters of the energy "situation" that was thrust on the US and CA in particular.
I remember in Spring of 2000 when it first started. 9/11 may have blown it off the radar screen for the rest of the country but not CA--we're still looking at it--and we want the money back that was gouged out of us. This was the first major scandal of he Bush administration, I was very disappointed. They'd said they would make things better and then things got worse real fast. Are you better off now than you were 2 years ago? Not by a long shot. Janus Fund was one of the big losers in Enron and I was incrementally so--almost $8K worth of loss to me in Janus alone. Ive lost over 1/3d of my stock wealth in the last 2 years, property values are lower also. In the last 2 years, the stock markets have lost aprox $6 trillion of our wealth--thats trillion. Every year of he Bush Era, the Dow has opened lower than the years before. The Nasdaq just had its worst December EVER. Unemployment over 6% for the first time in 8 years, a net loss of 2 million jobs.The borders are no more secure than before. Mexican trucks and truckers now roam our roads, anybody who's been to Mexico will know what this means. Not good, not good at all--I thought the tax cuts everybody was crowing about in 2001 were supposed to make everything better. The forecasts for this year are gloomy too.

Here's the true facts now that all the smoke is clearing and th mirrors are cracking:
There is no energy shortage now in CA and there never was--only a contrived, artificial price gouge.in one year, CA went from paying $6 billion for energy to paying $70 billion for 10% less energy. Youre reading the numbers right, that not a misprint--12 times as much for 10% less. We're still paying more although its come down some. This is the direct results of the Enron shell game, they intentionlly set out to screw us. Thats why we like to see them doing th Perp Walk and tho we'd like to see a lot more of this, you won't because too many of them played golf weekly with our President..
The current administration first started by blaming CA for its lack of foresight on building enough energy producers. That did not seem right to me then--this was complete BS--energy forecasting is a straight line scheme, there's little surprises in forecasting energy needs. Our growth is fairly constant and would be less if the federal govt would secure our borders. CA is a net EXPORTER of energy and oil. We have 4 out of 7 of the largest pumping oilfields in this country, 3d largest oil producing state overall. They changed their tune when the truth came out and it was proven beyond a doubt that CA was being gouged by unscrupulous price manipulators that unfortunately, were also the largest financial donors to the current adminstration. The Justice Dept has taken up the case and I'm sure we'll hear something from them about it maybe by 2007. Enron gave more money to G Bush than anybody else, $738,000 for his presidential run alone, Ken Lay ("Kenny Boy") was GWBs largest fundraiser , altho George initially denied knowing him when Enron started its meltdown.The administration has at least 2 cabinet members that use to work for Enron and dozens of mid and lower level people. VP Cheney is a former CEO(Still under investigation) of Halliburton, which used the same acounting techniques as Enron and also the same acountants-Arthur Anderson. Cheney had a lengthy video interview extolling Arthur Anderson a year before they melted down, showing some huge inability to recognise the difference betwen chickenshit and chicken salad and also what's good for the country. Well, he voted against increasing veterans benefits 6 times as a Congressman, too, a leading opponent of PTSD compensation-- I have a hard time forgiving him for this, esp because he had 2 DUIs. The energy plan Cheney developed gave Enron $267 million in incentives although they wwere in bankruptcy by then. it turned out that for CA, the problem was NOT lack of energy foresight but the regulation thrust on us by politicians bought by Enron and its ilk. This was bipartisan, no doubt, their scheme was to pay off both parties. The deregulation passed in CA with 100% approval.
The deregulation scheme was not written to lower energy prices for the consumer but to raise profits for Enron and other price manipulators by screwing CA consumers, the country's largest market. This is a result of the people who write the regulations going into an out of the same business. For instance, take Phil Gramm, former R/TX senator, whose corporation has now bought up the remains of Enron's energy games--his wife sat on Enron's board after being hired away from being on the TX PUC board. Some conflict of interst perhaps? Hmmmmm, we Californians must definitely keep an eye on these people.Concurrently with this, there was a terrific effort by conservatives and/or Republicans, politicians and talking heads to blame CA for its poor energy management, due to its liberal politicians. This is more BS, ignoring the fact that from 1966 to 1998 3 out of 4 CA governors were Republican (including R Reagan) The deregulation for CA was written for and sponsored by Pete Wilson, the last Rep governor,(1990--98) who STILL brags about it.
So lack of foresight was definitely the CA problem but it was not in building plants--we built adequate amount of plants--but the deregulation which allowed Enron to sell the power we made elsewhere and sell us out of state power at MUCH higher rates--I mean 100 times more--for less power than before. The result of this was to drive PGE into bankruptcy.Several of these suppliers have already started to refund the money and we hope they don't stop untill they wring every last nickel out of them--something else we lead in here is lawyers and they HATE paying too much.
There are many, many questions yet to be answered about this but, like Enron, nothing will one done about this in the next 2 years, most of the people involved will get away with their millions. there'll be a few doing the perp walks but not the big ones. Part of the problem is that much of what they did was immoral but not illegal. Enron has paid money to all the Congress members to develop these banzai business schemes (like "Death Star" and "Get Shorty"--cute, eh?) so that they and their shell game accounting schemes are quasilegal. It is these quasilegal acounting schemes that have contributed so much to the lack of consumer confidence--business is going bad but there's still plenty of $10 mil homes being built besides Fastow's. The administration has a hard time condemning them when G Bush himself signed for a loan for himself as a corporate director of Arbusto(privately held company)--since when did our corporations become private banks for the directors and CEOs? Some of my money in Enron did, a LOT of the money.
EFFECTIVE regulation of the energy business is obviously long over due, the consumer and small investor has been laid bare to th wolves by our leaders--not the gimmegimme regulation Enron loved but the stuff thats good for the consumer. Our taxes paid for a good deal of the construction of the energy production facilities in the form of loan guarantees.
Don't look for this from the current administration, their scheme is the old Reagan "Get The Govt Off The Backs Of Business" wheeze which is how the phony crisis started in the first place and was responsible for the Savings and Loan Scandal of the 1980s. Much of big Business is amoral and immoral and needs to be watched closely but unfortunately there's no laws against much of it and there'll be less than ever now.

James

[Drywall]

James, you must have the same broker we do. I know, not funny. My wife works for Qwest, the old US West and her savings and 401k plan has lost at least 2/3 if not 3/4 of its value. And the good old CEO made off with 215 mil. Or something in that neighborhood. And the they had the balls to hire him back as a consultant for another 3 mil per annum. Go figure.

[exlrrp]

Now darnit, Larry, a soft answer takes all the fight out of me.
I was hoping to get someone who defends the administrations' #s
"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
Ronald Reagan, 1980
We'll be asking this question, too, you bet, and as of right now, the answer is a very large NO! This is hugely disappointing, they promised things would be so much better and they got worse so fast.
What I REALLY want to know is: after all that crap about the balanced budget amendment, after all the fights about the "spendthrift" Democrats, why are the Republicans going back to the days of Reagan Bush skyhigh deficits? That turns their backs on everything they said about the defict and who's responsible for it.. They CAN'T blame the Democrats for this (tho they will try), they control the whole thing.That CAN"T be good for the economy. They are absolutely abdicating any credit at all for ever balancing the budget during the Clinton Era--remember when we argued about it on vets.com, Larry? How come the Republican controlled House claims credit for balancing the budget during the Clinton Era but can't do it AT ALL with Bush AND the Republican controlled Senate??? Theyve already said don't expect it the next 2 years either. Doesn't make sense. I said then that the first president to violate the Balanced Budget ACT would be Republican and I was right again
Here's the latest deficit #s from World Almanac 2003, page115:
FY1998-- +$70 billion
FY1999-- +$124 billion
FY2000-- +$236 billion
FY2001-- +$127 billion
FY2002-- -$106 billion
Not good, not good at all!!!

Bush's scheme is basically just hashed over Reaganomics: Cut taxes, raise military spending. Cut the government's income so they'll have more to spend (???) That only works if you want to go in debt, as the deficit record shows clearly--the deficit TRIPLED under Reagan and was getting bigger every year under Bush I also.
Reagan accomplished what he acomplished by writing checks that went oingoboingo. He did this all the time while blaming someone else for it. I could look real good too and accomplish a lot no doubt, if I only wrote chcks for my son to pay off in the future. We're STILL paying off this huge debt--oops we're not--we're back to accumulating huge debt again instead of paying it off. (19% of all budget outlays goes to debt service)(WA2003 p117)
Here's another good stat that illustrates it better
Per Capita Debt ( the part every individual owes of the national debt) (WA2003, p115)
FY1997-- $20, 026
FY1998--$20,043
FY1999--$20,0646
FY2000-- $20, 593
FY2001--$20,353
FY2002-- $21, 654
Your debt stayed at basically one level through the last 5 years for Clinton Budget and then leaped $1301.00 dollars in the first year of Bush Budgets!!! (Same Republican House!!). Did the big tax break give you that much?? If not, then you LOST--you owe more money now than you did when GWB took office. This will not be true of wealthier people, of course, as planned--they are now supposed to take this money and invest it wisely (ROTFLMAO) Hard not to laugh, isn't it? well, if its invested wisely, it won't be in stocks, probably in $10 mil houses or paying off politicians which mostly won't be the loser Democrats.
I don't remember the first 2 years of any presidency going this far south. I hope it doesn't get any worse.
James


ps: god to see you larry, happy new year

PPS Razz: I'm proud of being a leberal too and we'll spell it any dam way we want

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by MORTARDUDE James :

The House of Representatives is a great place to study. Look at turnover rates, voter turnout, gerrymandering, and all the rest.....

Larry

This is where the Pork gets dispensed and who has controlled the House these past 8 years?. The majority of the pork now goes to Republican districts, no quibbling about this now
james

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by Drywall James, you must have the same broker we do. I know, not funny. My wife works for Qwest, the old US West and her savings and 401k plan has lost at least 2/3 if not 3/4 of its value. And the good old CEO made off with 215 mil. Or something in that neighborhood. And the they had the balls to hire him back as a consultant for another 3 mil per annum. Go figure.

I was very, very lucky--first off, most of my investment money lately has been going into my son's education so I wasn't pumping it in like in the middle 90s.
2d, I have a dad who is the smartest investor you'll ever run across and he convinced me the tech bubble was about to burst. he convinced me not to put money into businesses that never showed a profit, use the P/I for investing, not the hype
I have 2 IRAs, one a more aggressive one and I took most of he aggro money out an put it in better, diversified some. None of my stocks tanked completely but they almost all lost. Fortunately I own realestate which has appreciated.
Its a wonderful life

james