D.C. Bamboozlers Make Enron Look Amateurish
The Wall Street Journal
March 1, 2002
In two recent editorials (“The Federal Enron,” Feb. 14 and “Fannie Mae Enron,” Feb. 20) you claim the federal government’s books are on par with Enron’s. But Enron’s accounts are paragons of order and transparency compared with those kept by the bean counters in Washington.
The shenanigans are exemplified by the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ neglect and mismanagement of the Individual Indian Money Trusts. That was the verdict, which was sustained on appeal (February 2001), in Cobell v. Babbitt. The three-judge appellate panel stated that government officials were “unable to execute the most fundamental of trust duties — an accurate accounting.” If that was not bad enough, a special master appointed by the court to look after the preservation of trust fund records filed a scathing report in November 2001.
And when the Journal rains on the parade of Houston millionaires taking the Fifth, recall that Judge Royce C. Lamberth held Bruce Babbitt and Robert Rubin in contemptp for not turning over essential documents to the attorneys for the Indians in Cobell v. Babbitt. Furthermore, as Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s Indian trust fund contempt trial drew to a close last week, Judge Lamberth’s complaints about being “duped” by the government suggest that he will throw the book at Secretary Norton, too.
Your Feb. 14 editorial frets about not finding the U.S. obligations to the International Monetary Fund in the federal budget. Stop worrying. As Robert Rubin told the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services on Jan. 30, 1998: “. . . over the past 50 years, our contribution to the IMF has not cost the taxpayer one dime. There are no budget outlays. Our contribution does not increase the deficit or divert resources from other spending priorities.”
Then Alan Greenspan went on to explain that the U.S. quota contribution to the IMF amounted to nothing more than an exchange of assets. And to further clarify, Lawrence Summers said: “It’s like putting a deposit in a credit union…deposit in a credit union isn’t like an mexpenditure to buy a car or something else.”
None of this bamboozled Rep. Ron Paul, who stated the obvious: “It has been continuously argued that there is no cost. You wouldn’t be here if there wasn’t a cost. You want an $18 billion authorization.” Compared with Washington’s, Enron’s complex deals, cooked books and tone definitely lack panache.
| 
