By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
By Roy Edroso
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
By Zachary D. Roberts
Don't Ask Texas Coroner
Enron's Vince Foster?
Why would a man who wanted to hire a bodyguard one day kill himself the next? This is the question that rattles conspiracy theorists in the case of Cliff Baxter, the Enron whistleblower whose death by gunshot last week in Sugar Land, Texas, was ruled a suicide. Baxter had been subpoenaed to testify this week on Capitol Hill. Those who doubt the official line think he's another Vince Foster, murdered in cold blood to stop him from spilling the beans on Enron chief Ken Lay and blowing open the whole scamoffshore accounts, political connections, and all.
Fueled by a report on Democraticunderground.com, skeptics are homing in on the Harris County coroner, Joye M. Carter, a former D.C. medical examiner who graduated from Howard and currently is attached to Baylor and the University of Texas. After performing a court-requested autopsy, Carter's office declared the former Enron exec had killed himself. While saying they respected that decision, local police said they intended to continue investigating.
Carter has had her share of controversy. In 1998, Harris County paid a former employee in the medical examiner's office $375,000, after a jury agreed Carter fired her for reporting potentially illegal cover-ups. Then a federal court awarded another whistleblower $250,000 after she was fired for reporting that an unlicensed physician had performed autopsies. In 2000, writes The Houston Chronicle, a Harris County commissioner asked the county to hire an outside law firm to review Carter's hiring and firing practices.
Ken Lay's wife, Linda, said on Todaythat she wished they'd known Baxter was suffering. "We would have gone and been with him," she said. "We would have done anything we could to have helped him, helped his family, but we had no idea he was in that kind of pain."
In refusing to turn over records from his energy task force, Vice President Dick Cheney apparently thinks the public can be convinced he has nothing damaging to conceal. But the smell of involvement by Enron officials, who discussed policy with Cheney in off-the-record confabs, is too pungent to ignore. One look at California's energy crisis reveals a pattern of engagement between the White House and the energy firm.
While Enron is not an important player in producing electricity in California, it is believed to have a 15 to 20 percent hold on gas sales there, so it stood to gain from the state's shortage of electricity. The stage for blackouts was set when the state deregulated electricity in September 1996. When consumer groups protested this move by pressing for Proposition 9, aimed at blocking a bailout of utilities' bad debts, the industry defeated the measure with a $38 million lobbying campaign. Enron has been a major player in California politics, spending $195,830 on its issues there in 2000more than in any other state except Texas, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
By the spring of 2001, the California energy crisis was in full swing. On May 7 and 8, the state was hit by a third round of rolling blackouts, which came to an end when Governor Davis agreed to underwrite the industry with the largest municipal bond offering in American history.
Five days later, the Cheney task force issued its report, urging relaxation of environmental regulations and increased drilling in protected areas (i.e., the Alaska wildlife refuge). Lay and other Enron execs were advisors to Cheney's task force and Lay himself met at least once with the veep. Enron, along with other oil and gas producers, would benefit from the new policies, because they not only leaned heavily on drawing electric power from gas-fired plants but also eased the way for exploration of domestic gas reserves.
So far, the energy crisis has cost California residents $8.5 billion. That doesn't include $23 billion in government bailouts and an expected additional $40 billion. As lawmakers debate whether taxpayers should foot the bill for Enron's collapse, they should consider the extent to which we've already borne the cost of Enron's follies.
An assessment of George Bush's first year as president comes down to just two things: winning the war on terrorism and getting clear of the Enron implosion. The war may momentarily detract from the biggest domestic scandal in U.S. history, but not for long. Bush set out to get Osama bin Laden and the Taliban's supreme leader Mullah Omarand after bombing a lot of Afghan villages, apparently got neither. Meanwhile, as long predicted, Al Qaeda troops have melted away into the countryside to fight another day, and any number of warlords have been resurrected to fight each other.
Things are going back to where they were before the Taliban imposed its fundamentalist regime, but this time, we're stuck in the middle, projectingif that's the word for itpolitical power. We're on the verge of destabilizing Central Asia and the Middle East, endangering the Pakistani government, and rubbing raw the discontent between Pakistan and India. We may very well lose Saudi Arabia as an ally. Now facing life in prison, the erstwhile Talib John Walker Lindh is at best a scapegoat, while the detainees at Guantánamo provide a focus for global fury. Running a war on half a dozen fronts and giving the finger to the rest of the world will just end up isolating the U.S.