The Wall Street Journal
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.
for more information: click here
|
