What's up with this?

  1. http://www.indystar.com/print/articl...-3073-092.html
    Bush will talk of tax plan in Indy
    President will focus on the taxation of stock dividends.

    By Mary Beth Schneider
    mary.beth.schneider@indystar.com
    May 7, 2003

    President Bush is coming to Indianapolis next week as part of a three-state
    campaign to win the support for his tax cut package from the public that has been
    lagging in Washington.
    Bush will arrive in Indianapolis on Monday night and speak to two groups of
    Hoosiers on Tuesday morning at the Indiana State Fairgrounds....
    Mitch Daniels, the White House budget director who announced Tuesday that
    he is stepping down from that post, said Wednesday he expects to join Bush at the
    Indianapolis speech.
    Daniels is widely expected to step into a campaign to become Indiana's
    governor in 2004.
    Daniels said he had no role in choosing Indiana as a stop on Bush's trip to sell
    his tax plan. Not that Daniels calls it that.
    "The jobs plan, please," he said. "It's the truth. He didn't send us out last fall to
    do a tax plan. He sent us out to do a jobs and growth plan."
    Bush sought $726 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. A centerpiece was
    eliminating taxes on stock dividends. He's not gotten it through Congress, even
    though Republicans hold slim majorities in both the House and Senate.
    ----------------------

    State Subpoenas 30 Business Elite
    Regulators probe allegations insiders 'dumped' $71 million in IPALCO stock.
    by Chris O'Malley and Gargi Chakrabarty

    INDIANAPOLIS - A "who's who" of the Indianapolis business community is being issued subpoenas from state
    regulators involving the sale of shares in IPALCO Enterprises around the time the utility company was bought by AES
    Corp. in 2001.

    The Indiana Securities Division on Friday sent the requests for information to about 30
    former IPALCO officers and directors, The Indianapolis Star has learned.

    They include former IPALCO director Mitch Daniels, a former Eli Lilly and Co. executive
    who is now President Bush's budget director. Daniels, who sold about $1.45 million in
    IPALCO stock in January 2001, on Tuesday announced he is resigning the federal post,
    leading to speculation he will run for governor here.

    Other key insiders being issued subpoenas are former IPALCO chairman John Hodowal
    and former vice chair Ramon Humke. Directors include former Bank One Indiana chairman
    Joseph D. Barnette Jr. and Anthem Chairman L. Ben Lytle.

    About 2,000 IPALCO employees alleged in the suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in
    Indianapolis that the insiders "dumped" $71 million worth of stock in the Indianapolis
    electric utility, in part because they saw trouble ahead with AES' stock price, which later
    tumbled.

    Friday's filing in federal court was a revision of the original suit filed in March 2002, after IPALCO employees lost
    thousands of dollars in company thrift plans after AES' shares nosedived.

    AES shares traded at $49.60 when the merger closed in March 2001,
    plummeting 90 percent in the first 10 months after the merger, and to a
    low of 92 cents last October. Shares closed Tuesday at $6.17, down 30
    cents.

    "What is noteworthy about (Friday's) filing is the fact that, until recently,
    we could only document that the insiders dumped $9 million in shares
    they personally owned soon after the AES deal was announced," said
    John Price, an attorney representing the IPALCO workers in the pending
    lawsuit.

    "However, recently unveiled documents confirm that the officers and
    directors actually dumped the incredible sum of over $71 million."

    The filing, for instance, states that insiders dumped more than $34 million
    worth of IPALCO shares within 30 days of Sept. 7, 2000, the date on
    which shareholders of record are allowed to vote later on the transaction.
    This allowed insiders to vote in favor of the acquisition and then quickly
    dump their shares.

    Investors allege the company insiders knew -- or should have known --
    that AES shares were volatile and that unloading their own shares was
    inconsistent with their recommendations that shareholders approve the $3
    billion acquisition.

    By contrast, IPALCO was considered a "widows and orphans" stock for
    its slow-but-steady growth.

    The state launched an investigation into AES' acquisition of IPALCO about a year ago, after a rash of lawsuits by
    employees and investors against company insiders.

    "We're just looking for the facts," said Indiana Securities Commissioner James Joven, who said he could not
    elaborate on details of the investigation.

    Subpoenas typically request documents and may seek answers to specific questions.

    The securities division has appointed as its special counsel the Evansville law firm of Ziemer Stayman Weitzel and
    Shoulders, which drew up the subpoenas.

    "It's about time," said Mark Maddox, a former Indiana securities commissioner who now represents securities fraud
    victims.

    He said former officers and directors either knew AES was a problem and sold their shares "to their own personal
    enrichment" -- or were not aware. Either scenario raises important questions that merit scrutiny, Maddox said.

    "Corporate governance is in the spotlight these days. It's pretty clear that this was an example of bad corporate
    governance," said Ken Skarbeck, managing partner of Aldebaran Capital Management in Indianapolis.

    Only two of the 32 former officers and directors could be reached for comment Tuesday. Former IPALCO director
    Andre Lacy, the president of Lacy Diversified Industries, said he had not received a subpoena, nor was he aware of
    the investigation.

    Former officer Ralph Canter declined to comment.

    A review by The Star last December of stock sales by insiders found that 14 of the 30 key officers and directors sold
    more than $22 million of their IPALCO shares between October 2000 -- when shareholders voted to tender their
    shares -- to February 2001, just two weeks before the close of the merger.

    Insiders reached last year explained that they sold shares for reasons ranging from job loss after the merger to a way
    to boost executives' severance pay under a change-in-control agreement dating to 1993.

    Copyright 2003 IndyStar.com
    •  
  2. 8 Comments

  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    Politics:
    Tuesday 06 May 2003

    In my 50 years as a member of Congress, I have had the privilege to witness the defining rhetorical moments of a number of
    American presidents. I have listened spellbound to the soaring oratory of John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. I have listened grimly to
    the painful soul-searching of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

    Presidential speeches are an important marker of any President's legacy. These are the tangible moments that history seizes upon
    and records for posterity. For this reason, I was deeply troubled by both the content and the context of President Bush's remarks to
    the American people last week marking the end of the combat phase of the war in Iraq. As I watched the President's fighter jet
    swoop down onto the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, I could not help but contrast the reported simple dignity of
    President Lincoln at Gettysburg with the flamboyant showmanship of President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

    President Bush's address to the American people announcing combat victory in Iraq deserved to be marked with solemnity, not
    extravagance; with gratitude to God, not self-congratulatory gestures. American blood has been shed on foreign soil in defense of the
    President's policies. This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial. This is real life, and real lives have been
    lost. To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the President to exploit the trappings of war for the
    momentary spectacle of a speech. I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have
    performed bravely and skillfully, as have their countrymen still in Iraq, but I do question the motives of a deskbound President who
    assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech.

    As I watched the President's speech, before the great banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," I could not help but be reminded
    of the tobacco barns of my youth, which served as country road advertising backdrops for the slogans of chewing tobacco purveyors.
    I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I
    saw.

    What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al
    Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect
    sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the
    September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who
    brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism
    against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the
    victims of 9-11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al Qaeda terror network. We can
    take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq
    as a victory over Osama bin Laden.

    We are reminded in the gospel of Saint Luke, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." Surely the same
    can be said of any American president. We expect, nay demand, that our leaders be scrupulous in the truth and faithful to the facts.
    We do not seek theatrics or hyperbole. We do not require the stage management of our victories. The men and women of the United
    States military are to be saluted for their valor and sacrifice in Iraq. Their heroics and quiet resolve speak for themselves. The
    prowess and professionalism of America's military forces do not need to be embellished by the gaudy excesses of a political
    campaign.

    War is not theater, and victory is not a campaign slogan. I join with the President and all Americans in expressing heartfelt thanks
    and gratitude to our men and women in uniform for their service to our country, and for the sacrifices that they have made on our
    behalf. But on this point I differ with the President: I believe that our military forces deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and
    not used as stage props to embellish a presidential speech.
  4. by   Mkue
    His speech had to make all the Democratic candidates and their supporters uncomfortably squirm in their seats. That alone is a good thing.Mike, USA
    __________________________________________________ _
    I cannot decide which aspect of the president's speech was more fundamentally satisfying. For me it is a toss up between the honest and well-deserved respect paid to the men and women of the coalition forces who fought in Iraq, and the unseen but inevitable gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects on the liberal-left as they are once again relegated to their favourite role of hating Bush beyond all reasonable measure. Give the man credit - he surely knows how to deliver the basic message.
    Doug, Canada
    __________________________________________________

    Bush has guts and a heart. He cares about people and languishes about death and war. It makes me ill to read criticism from semi-informed people who pump out anti-American rhetoric while millions of Iraqi people are now freer than they have been for decades. Power defines right... always has been this way... always will.
    Peter, USA
    __________________________________________________ _

    Having heard President George W Bush's speech, it was most impressive and indicated that he did what he thought was correct. People must remember that Iraq is a huge country and that, just like the UN weapons inspectors said that it would take them six months and more to find them, the coalition forces have only been in there for just over a month.
    Pratik Jasani, United Kingdom
    __________________________________________________ __

    He has my respect. He says what means and means what he says. Try to find a French president who can do that.
    Neil, Canada
    __________________________________________________ __
    Finally we have a president we can be proud of. His speech was direct, honest and free of the usual political rhetoric. And for those who think his 'announcement' was propaganda should think again. Was the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq propaganda? Was the ousting of the Taleban and Saddam propaganda? Well if so consider it propaganda with a precision guided bomb.
    Audra, USA
    __________________________________________________ __

    The President is a rule model for all the other Presidents to learn to defend humanity and a courageous man in face of great resistance and opposition. What I may also expect from him is to be fair to the great people of Iraq and give more assistance to the people of Afghanistan.
    Gyang, Nigeria
    __________________________________________________ __

    Stunning! There's lots of work to be done. He knows it. He says it like it is. The coalition has done a superb job. I am very grateful for our allies, and I'm cognizant of the great price that they paid as well as the political risks that they took. Bush also made a subtle reference to: Who has been with us and who hasn't been with us.
    Elaine Leikhim, USA
    __________________________________________________ __

    Not everyone was critical of the speech, here are just a few thoughts of people around the world and the US.



    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...nt/2991851.stm
  5. by   pickledpepperRN
    Actually I was originally asking about the Indiana story about Mitch Daniels.
    1. Accompanying the President on a press opportunity to pitch tax cuys.
    2. Stepping down after being sued by employees for fraud.
    3. Rumors he is planning to run for Governor.

    Anyone from Indiana know about this guy?

    PS: Post #2 is titled 'politics' clearly showing what I think of the article.
  6. by   Mkue
    Opps, I didn't know where your article came from spacenurse, thought he was referring to the historical landing on the Lincoln speech. He does mention the Lincoln in the speech.
  7. by   jnette
    Personally, I will have to agree wholeheartedly with the speech in Post # 2. That summed it up precisely the way I see it.. in ALL aspects. I, too, give credit where credit is due, but I thought his points were right on target.. each and every one of them.

    I was sickened and saddened as I watched this "historical landing"...

    Just MHO, tho'.
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    Originally posted by mkue
    Opps, I didn't know where your article came from spacenurse, thought he was referring to the historical landing on the Lincoln speech. He does mention the Lincoln in the speech.
    Sorry, it was me. I posted articles that were only slightly related (to the 2004 elections) in the same post. Only the first post had two articled about Mr. Daniels. The second was by a member of congress. That is why I labeled it 'politics'.
    There is clearly reason for differing opinions.
    With Mr. Daniels, if he DID cheat the employees for his benefit by lying, well guess how I feel about him running for governor.
  9. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by spacenurse
    well guess how I feel about him running for governor.
    I can bet you aren't very happy about it.

  10. by   pickledpepperRN
    Originally posted by mkue
    I can bet you aren't very happy about it.

    If I lived in Indiana I would first try to find out if the law suit has merit. If he didn't cheat workers for personal gain it would have to be the issues.
    I voted for Republican Richard Riordan for Mayor because I thought he would do a good job (he did). The Democrat running against him had termed out of a state office. I thought he moved to Los Angeles just to run. (carpetbagger).

close