Remember Enron ? Bush & Cheneys Solyndra... jobs were lost ,pensions lost ,taxpayers money lost , remember that when u blame obama for salyndra

its funny how everything is done by democrats . republicans never screw up they re the poor victims .
Bush is demanding unprecedented control over billions of dollars — with no oversight. His history of mismanaging taxpayer dollars should make Americans skeptical of his buyout plan:
IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
-$142 million wasted on reconstruction projects that were either terminated or canceled. [Special Inspector General for Iraq, 7/28/08]
-“Significant” amount of U.S. funds for Iraq funneled to Sunni and Shiite militias. [GAO Comptroller, 3/11/08]
-$180 million payed to construction company Bechtel for projects it never finished. [Federal audit, 7/25/07]
-$5.1 billion in expenses for Iraq reconstruction charged without documentation. [Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction report, 3/19/07]
-$10 billion in spending on Iraq reconstruction was wasteful or poorly tracked. [GAO, 2/15/07]
-Halliburton overcharged the government $100 million for one day’s work in 2004. [Project on Government Oversight, 10/8/04]
KATRINA
-Millions wasted on four no-bid contracts, including paying $20 million for an unusable camp for evacuees. [Homeland Security Department Inspector General, 9/10/08]
-$2.4 billion in contracts doled out by FEMA that guaranteed profits for big companies. [Center for Public Integrity investigation, 6/25/07]
-An estimated $2 billion in fraud and waste — nearly 11 percent of the $19 billion spent by FEMA on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as of mid-June. [New York Times tally, 6/27/06]
-“Widespread” waste and mismanagement on millions for Katrina recovery, including at least $3 million for 4,000 beds that were never used. [GAO, 3/16/06]
DEFENSE CONTRACTS
-A $50 million Air Force contract awarded to a company with close ties to senior Air Force officers, in a process “fraught with improper influence, irregular procedures, glaring conflicts of interest.” [Project on Government Oversight, 4/18/08]
-$1.7 billion in excessive fees and waste paid by the Pentagon to the Interior Department to manage federal lands. [Defense Department and Interior Department Inspectors General audit, 12/25/06]
-$1 trillion unaccounted for by the Pentagon, including 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. [GAO, 5/18/03]
Given Bush’s history of gross fiscal mismanagement — including an unprecedented number of no-bid contracts and Bush’s resistance to closing fraud loopholes or increasing oversight of contracts — why should Americans trust another $700 billion to his care? Paul Krugman writes, “Let’s not be railroaded into accepting an enormously expensive plan that doesn’t seem to address the real problem.”
Digg It!

· Stopping Auditor-Consulting Conflicts by Accountants

2000: Clinton Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Arthur Levitt proposes regulations to prohibit accounting firms from simultaneously serving as consultants and auditors. Anderson and other accounting firms marshall a massive lobbying campaign against the Clinton-Levitt regs, killing them. The lead lobbyist for the accounting firms is Harvey Pitt. After being sworn in as President, Bush makes Pitt chair of the SEC.
· Greater Disclosure of Derivatives
1997: Clinton Commodities Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born proposes greater regulation (by way of more stringent disclosure) of derivatives. Her proposal is beaten back by House Republicans, including then-House Banking Committee Chair Jim Leach (R-IA) who scolded her for two hours at a hearing;

· CFTC Oversight of Energy Traders
2000: William Rainier, Born's successor as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, told Congress he was "deeply concerned" about a bill to exempt energy trading from CFTC review, noting that those who trade energy derivatives were not subject to any other oversight. Rainer's objections were largely ignored by the Republican-controlled Congress, and the exemption, heavily backed by Enron, became law;

· Cracking Down on Tax Havens

2000: Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers proposes a crackdown on tax havens such as those used by Enron. With the US co-chairing the OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices, Summers crusades for a crackdown on money-laundering and tax havens. His proposal is opposed by the GOP Congress. When the Bush Administration takes office, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill abandons Summers' crusade, telling the Wall Street Journal, "The government has not been respectful of the cost it imposes on society." The New York Times reports that Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey (a former economic adviser to Enron) also opposed efforts to crack down on tax havens.
· Protecting 401(k)s

1997: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proposes banning investment of more than 10 percent of the total 401(k) plan in the employer's stock--the maximum that investment experts recommend a person sink into any company. The GOP Senate waters-down her bill so much it no longer applies to any corporation in America;
· Protecting Investors and Shareholders

On December 20, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the Public Securities Litigation Reform Act, which would have restricted lawsuits against corporation accused of securities fraud. In his veto message, Clinton presciently noted that while he supported the notion of reducing frivolous lawsuits: "I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that will have the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have legitimate claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have recourse in our courts.…our markets are as strong and effective as they are because they operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I believe that this bill, as modified in conference, could erode this crucial basis of our markets' strength." The GOP Congress overrode Clinton's veto.

Few will escape the financial, political and legal consequences of the “cook the books” scheme by Enron and the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen. Enron’s glitzy campaign money machine blinded many public officials to Enron’s meltdown, while leaving victims in its path. From Enron employees who have lost their jobs and life savings to the Connecticut taxpayers and ratepayers who will be paying for the Enron – CRRA debacle for years to come, the obvious question is where were government and stock market regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public’s interests.
Investigators focusing on Enron deals in Connecticut should determine and disclose if power brokers were involved and profited. With CRRA's President trying to recoup his $220 million loss from Connecticut taxpayers, the ultimate question is who brought Enron to the table with CRRA and CL&P and were finder's fees involved. If so, the Attorney General should attempt to attach those fees before creating more innocent victims in this high stakes public money game.
As recently as January, 2001, CRRA President, Robert Wright, offered the following response to questions by the DPUC “Enron came to CRRA with the proposal for a fuel cell facility at CRRA’s South Meadows Plant. CRRA did not solicit that proposal. CRRA has no request for proposal. Correspondence, memos and agreements between CRRA and Enron are the subject of a confidential agreement. The information contained therein is confidential and proprietary. And is a 'Trade Secret'.”
Wright further testified that although there was a meeting in August, 2000 at the offices of CRRA between representatives of Enron, Connecticut Innovations, Inc.(CII)/Clean Energy Fund and CRRA, there were no minutes and the handouts were trade secret! Yet, much of the money under the control of CII and CRRA, both quasi-public agencies, is raised through a charge on ratepayers’ bills and taxes. The DPUC is a public agency.
Regrettably, secret deals infused with public money continue to mire the political landscape in Connecticut. From Colonial Realty to the Silvester scandal to the Enron debacle, lack of government oversight has allowed political insiders to prosper at the expense of the honest, hardworking public. The fuel of the political engine is a combination of public tax dollars, lobbying fees, employee pension funds, and lucrative campaign contributions from special interests fused by conflicts of interest. Government business is no longer transacted in the public arena but under a cloak of secrecy among public officials and the power brokers who control them.
This was never more evident than in the Paul Silvester and Colonial Realty scandals. Silvester pleaded guilty to racketeering and money laundering charges in September 1999. He admitted that when he served as State Treasurer he accepted kickbacks from companies in which he invested hundreds of millions of state pension fund dollars. While the State and Federal government pursued Silvester, the State’s Ethics Commission pursued Peter Kelly, former Democratic National Committee Finance Chairman, and John Droney former Democrat State Chairman, who characterized themselves as “door openers” when they collected millions of dollars for arranging state pension fund investments.
In the mid 1990s, Connecticut witnessed the collapse of Colonial Realty due to unscrupulous business practices which went undetected by government. Hundreds of millions of investor dollars were lost. Similar to the Enron debacle, the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen destroyed incriminating documents. One would have thought that this and other surreptitious dealings by Andersen would have been enough to permanently remove them from the accounting field before they had an opportunity to destroy more lives!
When the money game involves public funding, government should impose strict conflict of interest and campaign financing laws and enforce strict oversight over quasi-public agencies.
A recent visit to the web site of Peter Kelley’s lawfirm Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, informs the public that they have been active in the deregulation efforts and initiatives in the telecommunications and electric industries within the State of Connecticut, active as a lobbyist for major electric and telecommunication providers before the General Assembly and within the dockets maintained by the Department of Public Utility Control ("DPUC") to implement these initiatives, closed transactions on behalf of their client Connecticut Innovations (CII), and represented the Clean Energy Fund.
I believe it is fair to question if a conflict exists with any law firm lobbying for the interests of any electric provider, which could benefit from financing through the client of that law firm, which may have access to and is responsible for disseminating public money.
The public is entitled to full disclosure of all Enron-CRRA-CII-CL&P documents hidden under the cloak of “Trade Secrets”. We are further entitled to know who brought Enron to CRRA’s table and if finders fees were involved.
The Enron deal of today, may be replayed in another workplace tomorrow unless the public, whose money is being stolen from them, demands accountability from their elected officials.