Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning After, Plenty of Blame to Go Around

We're now less than 24 hours removed from one of the most colossal legislative failures in recent memory, and the first rough draft of history has not been kind to any of the key players.

John Boehner
A recent poll says that more than twice as many of those surveyed blamed the House GOP for the failure of the bill. (Photo by AP)

A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Monday provides a useful early look at whom the public blames for the financial rescue bill's failure. House Republicans were blamed by 44 percent of respondents, Democrats by 21 percent, and both equally by 17 percent. The survey found that 45 percent supported the bill and 47 percent opposed (past surveys have been all over the map on this question), but there's little doubt about the impact of yesterday's events: 88 percent said they were concerned that the vote "could lead to a more severe economic decline in this country."

A host of smart analyses and behind-the-scenes accounts, along with additional reporting by the Post's team on the Hill, are available to us this morning, and they shed light on how miscalculations and leadership failuers on both sides of the aisle contributed to the result.

With great power comes great responsibility, and the bottom line is that the party in the majority of the House -- much more so than in the Senate -- has the ultimate say over what does and doesn't pass in the chamber.

As Republicans pointed out before they joined negotiations over the rescue bill, Democrats theoretically had the votes to pass the measure on their own. In practice, however, the majority party had too many members opposed to the bill for Democratic leaders to ram it through. But did there really have to be 95 "no" votes? For all their efforts on the bill's behalf, neither Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) nor Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) really put it all on the line Monday.

On a basic level, most congressional votes fall into one of two categories: "party-line" and "conscience." Votes on the rules governing debate, for example, are considered party-line: Oppose them at your own peril, as the leadership will be watching. Votes on issues that divide the Democratic Caucus -- the Iraq war, gun control and abortion, to name a few -- are usually in the "conscience" category, meaning that the leadership understands that members will vote according to their personal beliefs and/or the demands of their districts.

By all accounts, Democratic leaders put Monday's vote in the conscience category; the leadership wanted members to vote for it, but weren't going to punish opponents or hold out special rewards for supporters. It seems that Democratic members felt no particular pressure from the leadership to vote "aye." Now, many lawmakers were resolutely opposed to the bill and would never have switched, but given that this doesn't make the party as a whole look good, would it have been in Pelosi's and Hoyer's interest to apply a little more pressure?

As for the raw numbers, Hoyer told Republicans privately before the vote to expect 125-140 Democrats to vote aye. A Pelosi spokesman said during the vote: "We promised half. We delivered more than half."

On the Republican side, the Post's Paul Kane and Lori Montgomery report, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he expected about 75 Republicans to vote in favor of the measure, adding that he told Demorats that that was the number he was counting on. The largest number of Repulican yes votes on the board was, at one point, 67, and the final total was 65.

When Republicans fell short of that number, Blunt said he immediately thought of five people who might be willing to switch their votes if Democrats could come up with a similar number. "We could have eventually gotten them, but not in the time available," he said. "I was 40 percent of the way to getting my handful."

Blunt indicated that the fact that Rosh Hashanah began at sundown Monday rushed the vote, because -- even though the vote count was shaky -- House leaders decided that holding vote yesterday would be better than putting it off until Thursday, and letting the markets twist in the wind. "I don't argue with that decision," Blunt said.

Republicans very quickly got their ducks in a row after the gavel came down and went en masse to the microphones to suggest that the Speaker's floor speech was so partisan that it drove some Republicans into the "no" category. Two possibilities here: This simply isn't true, and was just a convenient way for GOP leaders to defect blame for the bill's failure. Or it is true, and several Republicans actually changed their votes on one of the most consequential pieces of legislation of our time because they were irritated by Pelosi. Neither possibility is particularly flattering to the GOP.

For what it's worth, no House Republicans have come forward publicly to say they switched their votes because of Pelosi's speech, while a few have said their leadership's contention wasn't true.

Even more so than their counterparts in the Democratic leadership, Blunt and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) didn't twist any arms to change the outcome. They asked, they begged, but they didn't bring the hammer down. With two-thirds of their Conference opposed, doing so might well have imperiled both men's futures in the leadership. As it stands, both Boehner and Blunt may well face challenges anyway after Election Day, as conservatives can point to their support of the rescue bill as evidence that they are too pragmatic and insufficiently committed to the ideological cause.

In the end, Monday's vote may well have been the ultimate prisoner's dilemma: In between the hard-core opponents on the right and the left, there may have been a significant number of lawmakers in the middle who wanted the bill to pass, if only to prevent a stock market implosion, but also wanted to cast their own "no" votes. They wanted other members to carry the political burden.

On the party level, both Republican and Democratic leaders believed, and hoped, that the other side was bluffing about how many votes it would bring to the table. Democrats thought Republicans were understating their vote count, in order to force Democrats to scrounge more votes, and vice versa. Even during the vote itself, each side kept waiting for the other to bring forward more support, like multiple witnesses to a crime all waiting for one of the others to dial 911. But the gavel came down without anyone making that call, and the bill died.

By Ben Pershing  |  September 30, 2008; 1:10 PM ET
Categories:  2008 Campaign , Agenda , Dem. Leaders , Economy Watch , GOP Leaders , House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why the Bailout Bill Failed
Next: Explainer: How the Senate Rescue Bill Is Different


With great power FROM the American people comes great responsibility TO the American people.

Congress needs to decide whether they are really willing to invest in worthless paper.

OR to invest in the American people where the only REAL VALUE in the American economy resides (not to mention, the source of their momentary powers).

The House did the right thing Monday but for all of the wrong reasons. America resisted a financial dictatorship by a nose (or by a few wounded egos). Now it's time to LOOK BEFORE WE LEAP (however much Bush and Paulson shout "panic!").

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | September 30, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse


NO BAILOUT NEEDED!! WHY ? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THIS/ 3,00000000000000000000000000000000









THAT IS 3,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 TRILLION SITTING DOING NOTHING….




Posted by: david,veteran | September 30, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Ben, I think it's a little disengenuous to place so much blame on the Democratic house on this one. Yes, they have a majority, but this needed to be a bi-partisan bill if had any chance of passing. It was basically a Sh1t sandwich that a majority of congress had to be forced to eat. Pelosi delivered 2/3 of her caucus to eat the sandwich, Boehner could only deliver 1/3 of his. How is this the Democrats fault again?

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 30, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Do these people in congress expect me to believe anything they say. Am I supposed to believe Bush? Am I to believe Paulson who came from the same ilk that he is trying to defend? And what about the whimp Bernanke am I to believe him too? I do believe there is a crisis but I think these people in Washington need to take time and make sure that the bill they pass is something we can live with in the future. This is serious business. This Democratic Congress under Pelosi's guidence has not passed one MAJOR piece of legisltion this year and the last time that happened was in 1950. The Republicans in congress have nothing to crow about either. This is like "Disney Land on the Potomic".

Posted by: r stellarini | September 30, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

we don't "blame" the House GOP for the bill's failure. we "thank" the House GOP for its failure.

Posted by: Legion, for we are many | September 30, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Pelosi once told the president "There's a new congress in town." I may be overlooking a few of their high points, but the only thing I can recall this congress passing is a string of anti-war resolutions that ultimately accomplished nothing. It would be nice if they did something positive we can remember them by before this congress ends. I believe their lack of production may be, in part, the cause of their single digit approval rating.

Posted by: DDS | September 30, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

From "Fact Of The Matter"

Camp McCain today issued a new Propaganda ad Called "rein", in which the RNC pointedly accusses the Democrats for the oncoming financial catastrophe that this current administration, and not too mention The past Administreation of Ronald W. Reagan' which begin this snowball effect when they begin undoing the regulations that were in place for banks....

Regarding "Regulating Banks: Enough Already" (Viewpoints, Feb. 7), let's see if I have it straight. Deregulation in the 1980's under President Reagan led to the savings and loan scandal, which led to the Federal bailout, which led to increasing the national debt -- and in the process caused some people to be led to jail.

Now comes Jay Baris, a New York financial services lawyer, arguing (presumably with a straight face) that President Clinton should further deregulate banks. Am I missing something?


Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system
By Martin McLaughlin
1 November 1999
Use this version to print

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.


John McCain: The Deregulator
I don’t think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country.”
– John McCain [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, 4/23/08]

McCain Is An Avid Supporter Of Lax Rules For Financial Institutions
McCain Supported A Banking Bill Because It Eliminated “The Tremendous Regulatory Burden Imposed On Financial Institutions.” While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, “This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions… One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community.” [Congressional Record, 11/19/93; emphasis added]

so we now have a brief history leading up to this mess and John McCain is wrapped right in the middle of the NET of blame he is trying to cast on the DEMOCRATIC PARTY
while he lies in this propaganda ad that Obama is silent...

Posted by: need4trth | October 1, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

The reason the bill failed is partly due to there being no real adressing of the underlying problem - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The best position I've heard on this problem is that of Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. He advocates "Privatization" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government should part them out and sell them off and get completely out of the mortgage business. That would be a permanent solution! Check it out:

Posted by: Texas T | October 1, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

McCain's "plan":

“The first thing I'd do is say, let's not call it a bailout, let's call it a rescue because it is a rescue. It's a rescue of Main Street America,” McCain said in an interview on CNN’s “American Morning.”

Is McCain talking about the "bailout" bill, or his campaign ?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat and I think the Democrats deserve a lot of blame. We can look to the past of deregulation from Reagan through Clinton then Bush then McCain. You can agree or disagree about deregulation all together but that negates what occurred just two years and three years ago. When the Democratic Party was presented with a bill in 2005 that addressed adding MORE regulation on Fannie, Freddie, and the housing market the bill never made it out of the Banking Committee which is chaired by Sen. Chris Dodd. The Democrats did not support it. Then on May 25th 2006 John McCain made another attempt by delivering a speech on the Senate floor to try to get the attention on regulating F & F. Still it fell on deaf ears while at the same time Rep. Barney Frank is saying how Freddie and Fannie are in great shape. I don’t doubt since Dodd and Obama came in first and second as the recipients who received the most campaign contributions from Freddie and Fannie for several years and currently would talk out against it. Dodd and the Banking Committee knew Fannie and Freddie were dealing in bad paper but if they missed that then that is more sad than the greed they let rule their decision.

I know someone said Pelosi delivered 2/3rd of the Dems and the Reps only a little over 1/3 but considering the Reps are against this type of government intervention to begin with I believe they did quite well. Plus giving a partisan blame speech before a much needed bipartisan vote is beyond stupid on Pelosi’s part. I know Obama adds like to say how McCain has lobbyist from Fannie and Freddie working for him. Well he does have an ex lobbyists as Obama does. Obama has many invented ways of getting lobbyist money but he won’t own up to it. Despite the fact that these people Obama is referring to haven’t worked for Fannie and Freddie for over two years, McCain showed everyone how lobbyist don’t affect his vote when he pushed for his bill and made his speech. Obama on the other hand stuck by Freddie and Fannie’s side. One could and should question what influence does being the second highest recipient of funds from F &F have on his decisions. Raines and Johnson association with Obama may be another reason to ask that question.

Posted by: Julie | October 1, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I have just waded through the 467 pages of the Senate Bill and the 74 senators who voted for this package should lose their seat when they respectively come up for re-election. What does our financial stability have to do with tax credits for American Samoa, Rum, Puerto Rico,mines, Indian employment credit, film and TV, wooden arrows for children (yeah), farm equipment, Exxon Valdez, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity, federal land special projects, help for brokers, regulated investment companies, wool and motorcross racing. I'm sorry, but if the House votes for this they need to all go home. I'm ready to vote all the bums out and vote for a Libertarian. How did three pages from Paulson turn into 110 pages in the House and 467 pages in the Senate? Get real folks — the fear mongering won't work anymore. I'm done!!!!!!

Posted by: jhay67 | October 2, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Bush/Cheney called 800 Battalions to harass Remaining House Members to Vote for Bailout Tomorrow!!

Just heard this - hot off the press at 9:30pm, Thursday night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will Bush/Cheney start WW III over this? We know they have been itching to start a war to counter/cancel November's elections so they can stay in power for the past year. Is this it?

The House members whom voted against are those who represent poor and low income areas throughout the country and areas that do not benefit from bailout. They are enough in numbers to make a difference in Monday's voting. Let's keep supporting them!!!

Pass this around to others so they know they have and are supported by the public!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

As I write this, I am listing to Boehner prate about how he is going to vote for the bill this time, knowing what he will not admit, that he and his fellow Republicans should have voted for the first time!

But their delay has already started a recession, which I propose we refer to from now on as "Boehner's Bung Up", since the Economist so brilliantly described the current state of the money markets as "bunged up".

Sometimes, you just have to turn to British English to find the right expression;)

Posted by: Syllogizer | October 3, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

By failing to pass the Paulson Plan Monday, Congress caused the country to lose 1.2 TRILLION dollars. Yet 'jhay67' would punish those who tried to save us from this loss?

That makes no sense. What DOES make sense is to punish at the polls those congressmen in both houses and both parties who lost us this 1.2 trillion. We should vote out of office ALL those who voted against the bill the first time OR the second time.

Don't be fooled: this is not a "wall street bailout": it is a rescue plan for the whole country. We simply cannot afford losing so much of the national money supply. Protecting the national money supply can ONLY be done by restoring confidence in the banking sector, as Paulson has been arguing for for weeks now.

Posted by: Syllogizer | October 3, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans win the Whitehouse nothing will get done with a Democratic House and Senate. So I am voting for Obama giving the Democrates a free hand to get things done , even though I won't like all they do. THe bailout bill to beadministered by one of the bandits of Wallstreet, God help us!

Posted by: E. Gerald Rolf | October 7, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

3 trillion ? Sounds like a personnel matter to Mr. 2 Gazillion

Posted by: ameear | October 7, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm 63 years old and have been a republican for just about all my voting life. (I became a GOP guy in 1967 when Linden Johnson announced he was stopping the bombing of North Viet Nam and I was standing in the DMZ outnumbered 5 to 1).

Well, anyway, I do not understand the Bailout. Bush has spent like mad and the banks and investment cos have made dumb decisions. Dumb homebuyers have also made bad decisions. And why did it just come up as an emergency almost overnight? Why is it MY problem? Where was congress? Sen. Dodd,head of the banking committee? And others I dont really have a clue about? Really, what are they doing for us? I just dont get it?

Posted by: sam cunningham | October 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Will anyone explain what 'Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources' used in 2003 and beyond!

Reference the following proclamation from the President of the US:

June 13, 2003
National Homeownership Month, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Homeownership is more than just a symbol of the American Dream; it is an important part of our way of life. Core American values of individuality, thrift, responsibility, and self-reliance are embodied in homeownership. I am committed to helping more families know the security and sense of pride that comes with owning a home.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is leading an Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners.

Posted by: sasha | October 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The push to credit 'mortgage-back securities' as the causal effect of our financial crisis is very troubling and misleading.
Yes,the home mortgage crisis is a huge contribution, however do you honestly believe Iceland, a Country, has gone bankrupt because of 'low income'or 'mortgage backed securitues'?

We cannot continue to allow the false rhetoric to soar and the truth to be buried. If we continue to blame 'mortgage-backed securites" as the root of the problem, justice will never be ceased.

We need to get to the root of this Global Financial Crisis, whatever the outcome.

Remember, Corporate Bankruptcy,Debtor in Possession Financing,(Darla Moore's invention-Richard Rainwater's wife), Healthcare Fraud and REIT's would be a great start.

I believe we should go back to 1997. The year Healthcare Reform was passed.

In 1997, the largest healthcare company in the nation was the "Frist Family" and friends' Hospital Corporation of America , HCA, or any one of their affiliates...There are many players here so try to keep up!


WASHINGTON, D.C. - HCA Inc. (formerly known as Columbia/HCA and HCA - The Healthcare Company) has agreed to pay the United States $631 million in civil penalties and damages arising from false claims the government alleged it submitted to Medicare and other federal health programs, the Justice Department announced today.

One must wonder about the mortgage-related securities JPMorgan is taking onto its books. The following are not the only questionable liabilities JPMorgan has taken on that Richard Rainwater was directly involved with and I am not referring to oil.

JPMorgan is taking on about $176 billion of WaMu home loans, and marking down almost $31 billion of that right off the bat.

Just before the Real Estate crash in 2007, JPMorgan Chase financed Richard Rainwater’s REIT, Crescent (CEI) sale. (Many investors wondered about this move)

Jul 28, 2003
SEC Settles Enforcement Proceedings against J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup
J.P. Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $135 Million to Settle SEC Allegations that It Helped Enron Commit Fraud
Citigroup Agrees to Pay $120 Million to Settle SEC Allegations that It Helped Enron and Dynegy Commit Fraud

The following is an excerpt from a 10-K SEC Filing, filed by J P MORGAN CHASE & CO on 3/9/2006: Enron litigation. JPMorgan Chase and certain of its officers and directors are involved in a number of lawsuits arising out of its banking relationships with Enron Corp.

The three current or former Firm employees are sued in their roles as former
members of NCFE's board of directors
National Century Financial Enterprises litigation. JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan
Chase Bank, JPMorgan Partners, Beacon Group, LLC and three current or former
Firm employees have been named as defendants in more than a dozen actions filed in or transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "MDL Litigation"). In the majority of these actions, Bank One, Bank One, N.A., and Banc One Capital Markets, Inc. are also named as defendants.
JPMorgan Chase Bank and Bank One, N.A. are also defendants in an action brought by The Unencumbered Assets Trust ("UAT"), a trust created for the benefit of the creditors of National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. ("NCFE") as a result
of NCFE's Plan of Liquidation in bankruptcy.

"...the Order finds that JPMorgan Chase was a cause of NCFE's violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, requires JPMorgan Chase to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and orders JPMorgan Chase to pay disgorgement of $1,286,808.82 and prejudgment interest of $711,335.76. JPMorgan Chase consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings therein."

JP Morgan Settles SEC Proceeding Relating to Activities as Trustee to National Century Financial Enterprises

The SEC settled administrative proceedings against JPMorgan Chase & Co relating to its activities as an asset-backed indenture trustee for certain special-purpose subsidiary programs (programs) of National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. (NCFE), formerly a Dublin, Ohio healthcare financing company, during the approximate period 1999-2002. According to the SEC's Order, JPMorgan Chase and Bank One Corporation, which merged into JPMorgan Chase in 2004, at the instruction of NCFE, made transfers between reserve accounts in the programs that contradicted NCFE's representations to investors about how the reserve accounts would be used and contravened the requirements of the indentures governing the programs. In addition, the Order finds that pursuant to NCFE's instructions, JPMorgan Chase and Bank One made month-end transfers of huge amounts of reserve account funds and that these transfers helped NCFE mask substantial and growing reserve account shortfalls. Based on the above, the Order finds that JPMorgan Chase was a cause of NCFE's violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, requires JPMorgan Chase to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and orders JPMorgan Chase to pay disgorgement of $1,286,808.82 and prejudgment interest of $711,335.76. JPMorgan Chase consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings therein. In the Matter of JPMorgan Chase & Co.

A little history of National Century Financial Enterprises (NCFE):

Prior to bankruptcy, NCFE provided financing to various healthcare providers through wholly-owned special-purpose vehicles,including NPF VI and NPF XII, which purchased discounted accounts receivable to be paid under third-party insurance programs. NPF VI and NPF XII financed the purchases of such receivables, primarily through private placements of notes.

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2007

COLUMBUS – A federal grand jury here today returned a superseding indictment charging eight former executives of National Century Financial Enterprises (NCFE) with conspiring to defraud investors by diverting millions of dollars in investors’ funds, fabricating data in investor reports, and moving money back and forth between accounts in order to conceal investor fund shortfalls. NCFE, based in Dublin, Ohio, was one of the largest healthcare finance companies in the United States until it filed for bankruptcy in November, 2002.

All defendants, except for James K Happ, were initially indicted in May, 2006. United States District Judge Algenon L. Marbley will preside over the case which is scheduled for trial on November 5, 2007.

“All defendants, except for Happ...”
Who is James K Happ?

James K Happ has an interesting employment history.

JAMES K. HAPP has served as chief executive officer of our subsidiary,
Tender Loving Care Health Care Services, Inc., since October 2002.
Previously, Mr. Happ served for three years as executive vice president of NCFE,
during which time he restructured the servicer department to improve operational
Performance and accelerated the utilization of technology to increase operational
efficiency. Mr. Happ also served as chief financial officer of the
Dallas-based Columbia Homecare Group, Inc., a home care company with more than 500 locations nationwide and more than $1 billion in revenue in 1997.

In this role, he directed the company through the challenging reimbursement climate, known as the interim payment system, and participated in the divestiture of all of Columbia/HCA's home care operations. (All of which are in the Bankruptcy case in Tennessee) Who owned Columbia Homecare Group, Inc.?

Posted by: Sasha2008 | October 10, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

The saddest thing is that the Democrats in Congress along with the MSM have been in the know on this problem as far back as:

Wednesday, January 01, 2003 5:59 PM
Subject: Cessation of ALL funding for the SEC Immediately

In light of the following, some sort of reality needs to be brought home to such a useless agency. The investing public must have better than this. With just this one company alone, there is almost a whole decade of improper reporting. If the SEC cannot catch on to something as simple as this, how can WE THE PEOPLE expect them to catch the more devious violations? Not only has this been a problem, but the improper approlval of Merck's IPO was another issue that makes me question any viable use of this agency. Oh there are many more instances of improper accounting by many other entities that have gone unanswered

Oh but let us get a little angrier:

Here is a paragraph that in basically the same form has been in a very primary corporation's 10K on the site:

Cash and Cash Equivalents: Cash equivalents consist of investments in short-term, highly liquid securities having original maturities of three months or less, which are made as part of the Company's cash management
activity. The carrying values of these assets approximate their fair market values. As a result of the Company's cash management system, checks issued, but not presented to the banks for payment, may create negative cash
balances. Checks outstanding in excess of related cash balances totaling approximately $292 million at September 28, 2002, and $265 million at September 29, 2001, are included in trade accounts payable and accrued salaries, wages and benefits.

Now you just might better understand the urgency for the fix; but why did not Congress or the media tell you? This firm has been an Enron waiting to happen and Congress and the Media, even though they are fully aware of it, have not told the people the truth..

Posted by: Sane American | October 10, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company