It would seem Wayne is saying that somehow, the U.S. has not been good to Halliburton. This has interrupted what seems to be a somewhat sensible thread...must spend some time on this...lol.
Do be or not Du bai...
- Thread starter buddy
- Start date
Wayne, I'd like to hear more about what "Corporate America" has had to endure over the past, let's say, six years, that would cause them to take their business elsewhere to set up shop. Specifically, let's talk about the company in question - Halliburton (throw in KBR, while you're at it) - and since you mentioned Exxon, how about the oil companies.
After that, please tell me if you would support more government contracts going to Halliburton if they move their main business to Dubai, no longer pay taxes in America, considering that they have admittedly defrauded the people of this country on more than one occasion - and that's only what we know about?
Still holding back here. But getting more interested.
Weasel, pretty solid post, above.
After that, please tell me if you would support more government contracts going to Halliburton if they move their main business to Dubai, no longer pay taxes in America, considering that they have admittedly defrauded the people of this country on more than one occasion - and that's only what we know about?
Still holding back here. But getting more interested.
Weasel, pretty solid post, above.
Another perspective on this:
----------------------
Take the Contracts and Run
What's Good for Hallliburton is Good for ... Dubai
By DAVE LINDORFF
I for one am not going to fuss about Halliburton moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai on the sunny coast of the Persian Gulf.
It makes sense, and it makes things so much clearer, too.
Halliburton, recall, is the company that has made the most money of any private enterprise off of the Iraq War--$27 billion to date, most of it in the form of extraordinarily profitable no-bid contracts (the company earned a record $2.3 billion last year alone). It is also Vice President Dick Cheney's company. He headed it for five years before deciding to go into "public service" as President Bush's regent in 2001, and he continued to receive compensation from the company, and to hold options for Halliburton stock well into his vice presidency, refusing even to put his holdings into a blind trust, as wealthy political figures normally do to ensure that they don't make decisions based upon considerations of personal gain.
Before, there was always the old argument that "what's good for Halliburton is good for America." That line may have been hokey when it was first uttered with regard to General Motors by then GM chairman Charles Wilson, and it is surely hokey today, but it can lead to some confusion among Americans still in thrall to the corporate creed.
But with Halliburton now a Dubai corporation, with its tax obligations now owed to the Dubai Revenue Department instead of the IRS, that deception is gone.
We know now that when Dick Cheney makes a foreign policy or war policy decision regarding Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia, he is really thinking about what it will do for Halliburton and Dubai--and for Dick Cheney.
Remember the big brouhaha that arose when a Dubai-based company was in line to take over the operation of several major U.S. ports last year? Members of Congress were in high dudgeon over that and in the end the plan was abandoned.
So how do we feel knowing that virtually the entire supply line for our over-extended troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is now in the hands of a Dubai corporation, and that it has its hooks into the central policy arm of our government, Blair House and the Office of the Vice President?
Next time Halliburton's KBR subsidiary serves our troops toxic, bacteria-ridden food, or puts untreated Euphrates River water into their canteens, maybe we should look harder to see if this was just another case of corporate corner and cost-cutting, or whether something more sinister was at work.
We--and members of Congress, if they still remember how to do their job--ought to be asking whether Halliburton's move to Dubai has anything to do with anticipated business should Cheney get his way and the U.S. attacks Iran this spring. Since such a war would inevitably include the destruction of much of Iran's state-owned oil industry, it would represent a huge new business opportunity for Halliburton, which first and foremost is an oil-services company.
Seeing all this is much easier with Halliburton based in Dubai, rather than Houston. Especially when you also consider the new oil law written by America and passed by the Iraqi parliament, which opens Iraq's oil reserves to American oil companies.
The American soldiers and marines stuck in Iraq, who have long been led to believe that they are over there fighting to defend America, should have little trouble these days seeing that they are really fighting and dying for Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil and Chevronand Dubai.
----------------------
Take the Contracts and Run
What's Good for Hallliburton is Good for ... Dubai
By DAVE LINDORFF
I for one am not going to fuss about Halliburton moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai on the sunny coast of the Persian Gulf.
It makes sense, and it makes things so much clearer, too.
Halliburton, recall, is the company that has made the most money of any private enterprise off of the Iraq War--$27 billion to date, most of it in the form of extraordinarily profitable no-bid contracts (the company earned a record $2.3 billion last year alone). It is also Vice President Dick Cheney's company. He headed it for five years before deciding to go into "public service" as President Bush's regent in 2001, and he continued to receive compensation from the company, and to hold options for Halliburton stock well into his vice presidency, refusing even to put his holdings into a blind trust, as wealthy political figures normally do to ensure that they don't make decisions based upon considerations of personal gain.
Before, there was always the old argument that "what's good for Halliburton is good for America." That line may have been hokey when it was first uttered with regard to General Motors by then GM chairman Charles Wilson, and it is surely hokey today, but it can lead to some confusion among Americans still in thrall to the corporate creed.
But with Halliburton now a Dubai corporation, with its tax obligations now owed to the Dubai Revenue Department instead of the IRS, that deception is gone.
We know now that when Dick Cheney makes a foreign policy or war policy decision regarding Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia, he is really thinking about what it will do for Halliburton and Dubai--and for Dick Cheney.
Remember the big brouhaha that arose when a Dubai-based company was in line to take over the operation of several major U.S. ports last year? Members of Congress were in high dudgeon over that and in the end the plan was abandoned.
So how do we feel knowing that virtually the entire supply line for our over-extended troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is now in the hands of a Dubai corporation, and that it has its hooks into the central policy arm of our government, Blair House and the Office of the Vice President?
Next time Halliburton's KBR subsidiary serves our troops toxic, bacteria-ridden food, or puts untreated Euphrates River water into their canteens, maybe we should look harder to see if this was just another case of corporate corner and cost-cutting, or whether something more sinister was at work.
We--and members of Congress, if they still remember how to do their job--ought to be asking whether Halliburton's move to Dubai has anything to do with anticipated business should Cheney get his way and the U.S. attacks Iran this spring. Since such a war would inevitably include the destruction of much of Iran's state-owned oil industry, it would represent a huge new business opportunity for Halliburton, which first and foremost is an oil-services company.
Seeing all this is much easier with Halliburton based in Dubai, rather than Houston. Especially when you also consider the new oil law written by America and passed by the Iraqi parliament, which opens Iraq's oil reserves to American oil companies.
The American soldiers and marines stuck in Iraq, who have long been led to believe that they are over there fighting to defend America, should have little trouble these days seeing that they are really fighting and dying for Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil and Chevronand Dubai.
i heard on the news that george soros just bought a shitpot load of chimpy-mchaliburton stock......1.9 million shares....at $31.30 a share....
what`s that?.... around 62 million.....over 2% of his portfolio.....
piling hypocrisy on top of irony in this thread.....
what`s that?.... around 62 million.....over 2% of his portfolio.....
piling hypocrisy on top of irony in this thread.....
Said this the first time i posted and i was told i was nuts. These are common theives running our country and they did steal those two elections in order to do this kind of stuff. This is what power hungry and greedy people do. They should all be hanging from a rope somewhere. These are dispicable people. What a waste of a military. When these pigs are finally let go they will have the best security you possible can have. Trust me they won't outsource this job.
100% German Matt
Jabbers You think there is any reason haliburton has had more work in last 5 years--DUH
On the running them off--I told you no one has to put up with abuse--you got one thats taken his ball and went elsewhere--you better figure on stopping others--instead of boo hooing about this one.
Nice to see however that you all have given up on the Cheney profits from Hal since VP--for a week or so-- I was getting tired of having expose the liberal blogs on their quarterly attempts everyone kept bringing back up.
Wonder who will be next to bite when they bring it back up? My guess is Stevie--as he's been caught 3 times already and still hasen't learned.
Jabbers You think there is any reason haliburton has had more work in last 5 years--DUH
On the running them off--I told you no one has to put up with abuse--you got one thats taken his ball and went elsewhere--you better figure on stopping others--instead of boo hooing about this one.
Nice to see however that you all have given up on the Cheney profits from Hal since VP--for a week or so-- I was getting tired of having expose the liberal blogs on their quarterly attempts everyone kept bringing back up.
Wonder who will be next to bite when they bring it back up? My guess is Stevie--as he's been caught 3 times already and still hasen't learned.
What haven't I learned? Tell me just one thing that Cheney has said about the progress of the Invasion of Iraq that has been right. Just one Dogs? If you don't think he is making a fortune out of this you are as crazy as he is crooked. So why don't you bring up a Neocon blog that will tell us Cheney has his stocks in a trust or he sold them all. Don't worry that American hating POS is killing our soldiers everyday for no known reason. Something of course that cannot be verified.
Lets see who they will run off next--"in defence" of the little guy
We've already discussed drug and oil companies
how about my fav --their assualt on the little persons fav store Walmart--and why because they won't unionize and Dems can't force independents and conservatives to contribute to their campaign fianace via union dues like they do at other companies--You think coincidence that Walmart is venturing into China/India and other countries are friendly to those that provide jobs.
ya dogs, Wal-Mart is great. One of the wealthiest companies in the world, that not only refuses to pay its employees Health benefits, but actually trains and assists them to go on STATE WELFARE BENEFITS, SO ALL TAX PAYERS CAN PAY FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES BENEFITS. RIGHT, GREAT COMPANY. its amazing how you get everything wrong.
Stevie I don't think anyone knows what/if he's making behind the scenes--
Only thing I can go by is common sense--and if he can afford to give millions of his entitlements from Hal to charity I doubt he's worried about skimming now--if he starts renting out white house for cash--writing books--and giving seminars/documentaries for cash I might consider your angle--but don't think he or GW need others to support them
Shamrock That was nice writeup you did for Hokie Fan--Very nice gesture on your part--Thank you
Only thing I can go by is common sense--and if he can afford to give millions of his entitlements from Hal to charity I doubt he's worried about skimming now--if he starts renting out white house for cash--writing books--and giving seminars/documentaries for cash I might consider your angle--but don't think he or GW need others to support them
Shamrock That was nice writeup you did for Hokie Fan--Very nice gesture on your part--Thank you
Stevie I don't think anyone knows what/if he's making behind the scenes--
Only thing I can go by is common sense--and if he can afford to give millions of his entitlements from Hal to charity I doubt he's worried about skimming now--if he starts renting out white house for cash--writing books--and giving seminars/documentaries for cash I might consider your angle--but don't think he or GW need others to support them
Shamrock That was nice writeup you did for Hokie Fan--Very nice gesture on your part--Thank you
http://www.giveitupcheney.org/agreement.html
Cheney's Gift Agreement
Since 2001, Cheney has claimed that one day his stock options in Halliburton will be given to charity, so that "technically" he holds no financial interest in the company. But it's been FIVE years and Cheney still holds 100,000 Halliburton share options with a gross value of $3.2 million as of March 9, 2007.
Why the delay in giving up the options to charity?
Cheney claims a contract he signed in 2001 "irrevocably" requires the options to be given to charity at sometime in the future. But the contract states: "Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create any legal rights, privileges, or benefits in any ... charity ... to any donation."
The Agreement also states that Cheney cannot be sued for reneging on his promise to donate the options to charity. It states, ?Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create any legal rights ... to any claim for damages resulting from any decision ... to withhold any item (i.e. withhold the stock options from the charities).?
The Agreement was signed between Cheney and Philip J. Ward, an attorney who is not affiliated with any charity. The Agreement gives Ward power of attorney over the options with the authority to donate to charity any profits derived therefrom.
Contract law allows the signatories of agreements to abandon agreements entirely if all the parties agree. Cheney and Mr. Ward may, at their discretion, terminate the Agreement at anytime and without any legal penalty and the charities would have no right to sue for damages. That's because the Agreement was made between Cheney and Mr. Ward, not Cheney and charity groups.
In other words, Vice President Cheney could retire from politics and terminate the gift agreement with the consent of Mr. Ward and keep all of his stock options.
Given Cheney's propensity for secrecy, the American people have reason to question whether the Vice President truly intends to donate the Halliburton options to charity. His ongoing interest in the Halliburton options creates an ongoing conflict of interest at the highest levels of government.
We call on the vice president to give up his options immediately and cease his conflict of interest between his governmental duties and his financial interest in Halliburton.
The ?Give It Up, Cheney? campaign suggests Mr. Cheney consider donating the proceeds from his remaining Halliburton stock options to the following charities that work with Iraq war veterans:
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund
Mercy Corps
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
Tell Mr. Cheney to give it up.
More on the campaign can be found on the internet at http://www.GiveItUpCheney.org
giveitupcheney.org :mj07:
Stevie--I always try to reframe from name calling but after I have to put this up AGAIN for about the 3rd time for you--I am forced to label you--
The liberal blog baffoon of the forum--
Will you EVER learn tothink for yourself?????
Here is link so you can link to ACTUAL documents.
http://www.factcheck.org/printerfriendly261.html
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
September 30, 2004
Modified:September 30, 2004
Summary
A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.
The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.
Analysis
A Kerry ad released Sept 17 once again attacks Cheney's ties to Halliburton, implying that Cheney is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. That's false.
Kerry-Edwards Ad
"Cheney Halliburton"
Cheney: I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.
Announcer: The truth: As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get? A $200 billion dollar bill for Iraq. Lost jobs. Rising health care costs. It's time for a new direction.
John Kerry. Stronger at home. Respected in the world.
Announcer: I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message.
The ad isn't subtle. It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?" And it implies that Cheney lied to the public when he said in a TV interview that "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."
But as we document here, Cheney has insulated himself financially from whatever might happen to Halliburton. The Kerry ad misstates the facts.
$2 Million
To start, the $2 million figure is wrong. It is true that Cheney has received just under $2 million from Halliburton since his election, but nearly $1.6 million of that total was paid before Cheney actually took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Saying Cheney got that much "as vice president" is simply false.
We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document that, and he did, supplying several documents never released publicly before:
A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
Another pay statement dated Jan. 18 shows $1,451,398 was paid that day under the company's "Incentive Plan C" for senior executives. That was Cheney's incentive compensation -- bonus money -- paid on the basis of the company's performance in 2000. Cheney had formally resigned from the company the previous September to campaign full time, but the amount of his bonus couldn't be calculated until the full year's financial results were known.
Cheney's personal financial disclosure forms, together with the pay statements just mentioned, show that Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred salary from Halliburton "as vice president." And of course, all of that is money he earned when he was the company's chief executive officer. Cheney was due to receive another payment in 2004, and a final payment in 2005.
The Kerry ad isn't the only place the false $2 million figure appears. The Democratic National Committee also gets it wrong on their website. The dates of the Halliburton payments don't appear on Cheney's personal financial disclosure form from 2001, and the DNC assumed -- incorrectly as we have shown -- that all the 2001 payment were made after he took office.
Deferred Salary
The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form , posted here publicly for the first time.
Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay. That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him$14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing. But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.
Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.
Stock Options
That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.
The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.
The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.
The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.
"Financial Interest"
Democrats have taken issue with Cheney's statement to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press Sept. 14, 2003, when he said he had no "financial interest" in Halliburton:
Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years. And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government.
Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.
But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.
Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.
Conflict of Interest
It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.
And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.
Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.
Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.
So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong
Stevie--I always try to reframe from name calling but after I have to put this up AGAIN for about the 3rd time for you--I am forced to label you--
The liberal blog baffoon of the forum--
Will you EVER learn tothink for yourself?????
Here is link so you can link to ACTUAL documents.
http://www.factcheck.org/printerfriendly261.html
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
September 30, 2004
Modified:September 30, 2004
Summary
A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.
The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.
Analysis
A Kerry ad released Sept 17 once again attacks Cheney's ties to Halliburton, implying that Cheney is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. That's false.
Kerry-Edwards Ad
"Cheney Halliburton"
Cheney: I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.
Announcer: The truth: As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get? A $200 billion dollar bill for Iraq. Lost jobs. Rising health care costs. It's time for a new direction.
John Kerry. Stronger at home. Respected in the world.
Announcer: I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message.
The ad isn't subtle. It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?" And it implies that Cheney lied to the public when he said in a TV interview that "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."
But as we document here, Cheney has insulated himself financially from whatever might happen to Halliburton. The Kerry ad misstates the facts.
$2 Million
To start, the $2 million figure is wrong. It is true that Cheney has received just under $2 million from Halliburton since his election, but nearly $1.6 million of that total was paid before Cheney actually took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Saying Cheney got that much "as vice president" is simply false.
We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document that, and he did, supplying several documents never released publicly before:
A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
Another pay statement dated Jan. 18 shows $1,451,398 was paid that day under the company's "Incentive Plan C" for senior executives. That was Cheney's incentive compensation -- bonus money -- paid on the basis of the company's performance in 2000. Cheney had formally resigned from the company the previous September to campaign full time, but the amount of his bonus couldn't be calculated until the full year's financial results were known.
Cheney's personal financial disclosure forms, together with the pay statements just mentioned, show that Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred salary from Halliburton "as vice president." And of course, all of that is money he earned when he was the company's chief executive officer. Cheney was due to receive another payment in 2004, and a final payment in 2005.
The Kerry ad isn't the only place the false $2 million figure appears. The Democratic National Committee also gets it wrong on their website. The dates of the Halliburton payments don't appear on Cheney's personal financial disclosure form from 2001, and the DNC assumed -- incorrectly as we have shown -- that all the 2001 payment were made after he took office.
Deferred Salary
The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form , posted here publicly for the first time.
Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay. That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him$14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing. But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.
Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.
Stock Options
That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.
The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.
The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.
The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.
"Financial Interest"
Democrats have taken issue with Cheney's statement to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press Sept. 14, 2003, when he said he had no "financial interest" in Halliburton:
Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years. And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government.
Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.
But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.
Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.
Conflict of Interest
It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.
And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.
Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.
Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.
So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong
Sounds like a you said he said. I do not see where you proved anything about the stock options I refer to. You got someone saying he can't get out of it I got someone saying he can.:shrug:
Too bad he would come clean and release everything. Makes it look like he is trying to hide something.
And you can call me all the names you want because the worst name an American can be called is a Neocon.
Too bad he would come clean and release everything. Makes it look like he is trying to hide something.
And you can call me all the names you want because the worst name an American can be called is a Neocon.
Looks like we will go over this situation again, which is fine. I'll just start with this oldie - but I suggest goodie - which captures the essence of the Cheney/Halliburton/US Taxpayer scenario.
1. See Dick become a Senator.
2. See Dick be named Secretary of Defense.
3. See Dick award contracts to Halliburton.
4. See Dick named CEO by Halliburton and make a ton of money.
5. See Dick get paid by Halliburton to head VP Search committee.
6. See Dick name himself as best candidate for VP.
7. See Dick become VP.
8. See Dick decide to go to war in an oil-based country that did not attack us.
9. See Dick oversee billions in taxpayer money going to Halliburton.
10. See Halliburton overcharge taxpayers and charge for work not done. Twice.
11. See Dick oversee additional billions in taxpayer money going to Halliburton despite #10.
12. See Dick donate a lot of money to charity partially because Halliburton stock skyrockets during his administrations run. Actually, this is not all bad. At least Dick didn't say his charitable contribution had to go directly to Neil Bush's software company, like Dubbya's mama did.
13. See neocons try to justify situation as nothing more than Dick being a good charitable citizen.
1. See Dick become a Senator.
2. See Dick be named Secretary of Defense.
3. See Dick award contracts to Halliburton.
4. See Dick named CEO by Halliburton and make a ton of money.
5. See Dick get paid by Halliburton to head VP Search committee.
6. See Dick name himself as best candidate for VP.
7. See Dick become VP.
8. See Dick decide to go to war in an oil-based country that did not attack us.
9. See Dick oversee billions in taxpayer money going to Halliburton.
10. See Halliburton overcharge taxpayers and charge for work not done. Twice.
11. See Dick oversee additional billions in taxpayer money going to Halliburton despite #10.
12. See Dick donate a lot of money to charity partially because Halliburton stock skyrockets during his administrations run. Actually, this is not all bad. At least Dick didn't say his charitable contribution had to go directly to Neil Bush's software company, like Dubbya's mama did.
13. See neocons try to justify situation as nothing more than Dick being a good charitable citizen.
BOTTOM LINE IT FOR YOU :
BOTTOM LINE IT FOR YOU :
We get what we pay for. We have the best White House, Senate & Congress money and apathy can buy. This is what most of America has endorsed. The rest is just squealing on the way to slaughter ! There is no sense in debate , until some of us ,get the rest of us involved. Case closed. Who's looking out for you and me ? No one. Why ???? They don't have to. Why ??? No one votes. Everything is this thread is just lip service, until we change the way "WE" think as Americans and act like the free people that we are and VOTE ! America is in a state of indifference, and it's not by accident. Our two parties have successfully lobotomized most of us. It's an up hill battle boys, most of us are not in it to win. It's every man for himself, that's the way they want it. Divide and conquer. Their plan is working. It's not about the left & right , it's about us & them ! We can't keep recycling shit, and expect the process to render anything but.
BOTTOM LINE IT FOR YOU :
We get what we pay for. We have the best White House, Senate & Congress money and apathy can buy. This is what most of America has endorsed. The rest is just squealing on the way to slaughter ! There is no sense in debate , until some of us ,get the rest of us involved. Case closed. Who's looking out for you and me ? No one. Why ???? They don't have to. Why ??? No one votes. Everything is this thread is just lip service, until we change the way "WE" think as Americans and act like the free people that we are and VOTE ! America is in a state of indifference, and it's not by accident. Our two parties have successfully lobotomized most of us. It's an up hill battle boys, most of us are not in it to win. It's every man for himself, that's the way they want it. Divide and conquer. Their plan is working. It's not about the left & right , it's about us & them ! We can't keep recycling shit, and expect the process to render anything but.
Last edited:
What kind of work ? Camel jockey in Dubi for the Cheney barn ? Are you an American ? where are you from son ?
That's life ! One mans slave labor is anothers ends meet. If a person is willing to work for a wage to feed his family, who are you to step in and say it's not enough ? You sound and think like a socialist. Without salve labor the masses would not eat. It happens hear in America. I always believed people get payed what they are worth. If they want more they can demand it. If they don't get it, they weren't worth more. No smart business man is going to let someone go if they are worth the asking price. I wouldn't. Most of the masses are not worth much.
