AT ISSUE: Schaffer's questionable oil dealings
Michael Huttner
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Coloradans are reeling from skyrocketing prices at the pump while the oil and gas industry is pulling in record profits. In his April 30 column ("Smeared with oil"), Vincent Carroll asks if Bob Schaffer's connection to an energy company is a liability. And the answer is: It should be.
As a congressman, Schaffer voted for $33 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. When he left office in 2003, the industry, it seems, returned the favor. Schaffer promptly took a job as an oil industry executive and has since earned more than $1 million working to maximize his oil company's profits.
We also question whether Schaffer is profiting from the war in Iraq. As a congressman, he voted to go to war. Then he went to work for the oil company and, in that position, he led the company's delegation in Iraq to lobby local speculators for oil contracts.
At the time, the Iraqi government had secured a hard-fought compromise to ensure that all parties in the country could work together to manage the oil fields and share the profits. For President Bush, the national oil-sharing agreement was a key benchmark of progress in Iraq.
But Schaffer's moves seem to undermine all that. By negotiating directly with American companies like Schaffer's, the local speculators were ignoring the Iraqi national government and working against American interests.
Schaffer's trip to Iraq was bad for Iraq and bad for American interests but it paid off for him: This past November, as the war dragged into its fourth year, Schaffer's oil company was awarded a lucrative license for 269 square miles in northern Iraq.
Congressman Schaffer consistently voted to help the oil and gas industry and, since leaving office, he's personally benefited from that industry. And his company has profited from working around the rules in a war he voted to authorize.
* What do you think? Go to RockyMountain News.com/opinion to join the conversation about this issue.
Michael Huttner heads Denver-based ProgressNowAction.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
May 13, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
too bad he didnt play the cattle futures. He wouldnt have had to go anywhere except the bank. oh wait not every first time investor makes a big hit in the futures market on their only try.
May 13, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
binaryman3 writes:
Our reps and senators are not banned by current law to have a second job and any job could be considered a conflict of interest if you want to apply that standard equally. AT least he is looking for oil compared our government who doesnt want to because of environmental group influence! If the environmental groups can influence the feds not to drill then the oil companies have a right to influence the feds to drill.
Until you ban outside jobs and PAC money from the elected reps and senators the feds will always be working for a special interest group. But arent we all a special interest?
May 13, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
But, but, but.... his pro-life rhetoric sounds so sincere.... And don't forget, he's good on guns too....
May 13, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Froward69 writes:
In the republicans (failed) contract with America. special interests , and lobbyists were a bad thing. This is the same stuff republicans blamed on Dems. as we have seen republicans make laws to discourage freedom and choice. locking us into paying for overpriced services guaranteed to be without competition. no bid contracts to company's like haliburton and KBR to supply perpetual war.
yet rethuglicans have no sense of shame or that what they have done is damage and undermine the United States. then again thats their stated objective.
May 13, 2008
7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
...and that's the latest word straight from the Ebonics Peanut Gallery - back to you, Reverend Wright.
May 13, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
How generously does the currency speculator George Soros fund Michael Huttner?
May 13, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
George Soros....please. Is that all you got, konyok?
May 13, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Basically, Bad Ol' Bob went and got a job that helped enrich Iraqis while he provided for his own family.
Such an evil, evil man.
Don't you know that we're all supposed to take money from George Soros to work to change the real world into Soros' fantasy world. That's the only legitimate job anybody should ever have!
May 13, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Forward69 et al., are like Carnac on Johnny Carson show; The answer is Haliburton. The question is ________ (fill in as necessary.)
May 13, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
outrider writes:
I am trying to get information on how much we pay for our own home grown oil any suggestions.
How much are we being charged and by whom?
May 13, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
ollie writes:
Earl; can't handle the truth? Go back to playing with your sheep.
May 13, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
We've got long lists of Democrat shenanigans:
Rep William Jefferson: $$$ in illegal cash found by FBI in his freezer. Still in office.
Sen Harry Ried: Made millions in shady Las Vegas land deals. His sons are millionaire lobbyists. Still in office.
Rep. Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Sent $15 Mil in pork to companies with which her family business (staffed with illegal aliens) is in cahoots. Still in office.
Rep. Alcee Hastings: Removed from his federal judgeship BY THE CONGRESS OF WHICH HE IS NOW A MEMBER for taking bribes in cases before his court. Still in office.
I could go on and on.
Clean your own house first Huttner.
May 13, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I'll play your game Gene. What company illegaly supplied oil field equipment to Iraq during the Saddam Hussein regime? This was discovered after we invaded Iraq.
May 13, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Spencer: Back up that Haliburton claim. And no citing Michael Moore, Move On or Media Matters etc.
May 13, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Tbone,
I think it's a fair question.
Huttner writes with a tone of moral superiority and uses the loaded term "speculator" to describe the Kurdish government. Mr. Soros has a history of funding progressive critics of conservatives. Mr. Soros is indisputedly a currency speculator. So, I do think that it is fair to ask whether a financial relationship may exist between Mr. Soros and Mr. Huttner.
May 13, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Hey Huttner. I just viewed you web site. Your idea of changing the world is to "honk for impeachment"? What a pathetic movement. Why don't you "progressives" just stay home and drink your bong water while the rest of us create the wealth that you mooch off of and criticize simultaneously.
May 13, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Careful Konyok. In the progressive world, truth = hate speech.
May 13, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Froward, Marshdale, Spencer: You gutless wonders disappear behind your wives hyphenated skirts every time you're hit with a tough question. How about some answers you progressive girlie-men?
May 13, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Forward69, SpencerMichaelMoore, MoveOnMediaMadders, et al.,
The Carnac question can be anything, anything at all, and the answer is, always, Haliburton. That was my point.
May 13, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
here you go pajama mama, if you don't like the source try Google. There are a few pages.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/a...
May 13, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...if that is pjmama's "long list of Democrat shenanigans", i think we can rest assured that the republican title of most corrupt is in no danger of being usurped.
May 13, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...if that is pjmama's "long list of Democrat shenanigans", i think we can rest assured that the republican title of most corrupt is in no danger of being usurped.
May 13, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co did business with Iraq through French business associations. (would you like your beloved Jaques Chirac to go to jail?). These are not even American companies. Where's the illegality?
In the cases of Ried, Pelosi, Hastings, et al I can tell you exactly where is the illegality.
The difference with you libs is that you don't send your bad guys packing. Conservatives do, with the help of the liberal media. Let me throw in a few more.
Jim McDermott: Illegal wiretapping. Still in office.
Barney Frank. Gay prostitution ring run out of his house. Still in office.
Ted Kennedy. DUI manslaughter. Still in office.
Jesse Jackson Jr. Shakedown for Anheuser Busch distributorship. Still in office.
John Murtha: Implicated on vidoetape in the Abscam sting. Still in office.
Need I go on?
May 13, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
pajamas-
"Sen Harry Ried: Made millions in shady Las Vegas land deals. His sons are millionaire lobbyists. Still in office.
Rep. Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Sent $15 Mil in pork to companies with which her family business (staffed with illegal aliens) is in cahoots. Still in office."
How was any of that illegal? Having a millionaire son is now illegal? Sending pork home is now illegal?
BTW, you are aware that St. Mcsame has used his influence to broker land deals that benefited his lobbyist pals and his supporters, right? Why is he still in office?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Need I go on?
May 13, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
Man, I don't know how I missed this one:
"The difference with you libs is that you don't send your bad guys packing."
You mean like Larry Craig? How about Ted Stevens? Don Young?
Here's a few more:
George Bush, Dick Cheney - illegal wiretapping. Still in office.
Need I go on?
May 13, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Bush and Cheney did not illegally wiretap anyone. The Justice Department engages in data mining which is the monitoring of overseas phone calls (not conversations) for the purpose of identifying who in America is contacting phone numbers of known terrorists. This is not a wiretap. Once they find that your cell phone contacted UBL's cell phone then they get a court order for the wiretap of your cell phone and only then do they listen to your conversations. You ignorant liberals are sooo much more intelligent than the rest of us yet you are too blinded by your hatred of conservatives and your love of terrorist's civil liberties to know what is a wiretap and what it is not.
Larry Stevens and Don Young are toast, and Larry Craig will not be reelected in his conservative district. Conservatives are not in the habit of sending crooks and perverts back to DC as are libs.
May 13, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Tbone:
Harry Reid did not disclose the income on the forms required by the congress, which is an illegal omission. But, since the dems are in charge of the congress, no one in the Senate seems interested.
As for his son's lobbying efforts. The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of Harry Reid's son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.
Barringer is listed in federal lobbyist reports as one of Hughes' representatives on the measure that his father-in-law introduced.
Other provisions were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of Reid's sons — by moving the right-of-way for a federal power-transmission line off his property and onto what had been protected federal wilderness.
The governments of three of Nevada's biggest cities — Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson — also gained from the legislation, which freed up tens of thousands of acres of federal land for development and annexation. All three were represented by Reid's family members who contacted his staff on their clients' behalf.
In the last four years alone, Reid family members' firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.
Nancy Pelosi hired illegals which is of course illegal, and sending pork that ends up in your own hand is at least unethical but since the dems are in charge of the congress...
May 13, 2008
4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
pajamas-
Actually, the wiretaps -were- illegal.
That's why they're called illegal wiretaps. They are monitoring domestic calls.
So, why are Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, Don Young, and John McCain still in office, if repubs are so ethical?
And what about John McSame's unethical land dealings?
Let me guess.....IOKIYAR.
May 13, 2008
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
pj mama, I was just playing Gene's little Karnac game. I could have said, what company provided our soldiers with contaminated water? or what company has billions in no-bid contracts and can't explain where they spent millions? Before you go on the little neo-con rant about everyone profiting during wartime check out what Dupont did during WWII. They charged the US exactly one dollar for their work. Of course they did it out of a sense of patriotism and it was a real war as oppossed to some exercise in how to loot the Treasury. Google is your friend.
May 13, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Haliburton . . . see, it is a magic word.
May 13, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Tbone: So do you get all of your news from Air America or are they not radical enough for you? There have been no "illegal wiretaps". Bush said in a news conference over 2 years ago "A wire tap requires a court order" and he was right, data mining does not. DATA MINING! Get it? You get the court-ordered wiretap after you know who you want. You don't just wiretap the whole country. Wiretaps require a specific piece of hardware for each tap. It's not practical to wiretap everyone.
Spencer: I tried to warn you guys about drinking the bong water. You love to believe what you love to believe. And since you when do you love DuPont?
Anything to blame Bush and Haliburton.
May 13, 2008
5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Gene: Glad to see you're lurking. You try to explain to these brain surgeons the difference between data mining and wire tapping.
You truly cannot speak rationally with a liberal.
May 13, 2008
5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
Oh Bush said there have been no illegal wiretaps?
Oh, by all means, then there must have been nothing improper going on. Because we all know St. Bush never, ever, ever, never lies, so stop saying that!
If nothing illegal happened, then why are telecom companies seeking immunity, pajamas? If they did nothing wrong, then they should have nothing to hide, right?
So, if repubs are as ethical as you say, why are Don Young, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, and John McSame still in office?
Why are you hiding behind your mom's skirt, too afraid to answer the question? How about some answers, you conservative girly-man?
Ha.....I'm still laughing.....Bush said so.....good one.
May 13, 2008
6 p.m.
Suggest removal
titancain writes:
This says everything you need to know about w. "Childrens do learn." If I spoke like that I would never get a job let alone be president. What idiots you are.
May 13, 2008
6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Tbone: You really aren't very observant, are you? I have cut and pasted my writing as to not confuse.
"Bush said in a news conference over 2 years ago 'A wire tap requires a court order'".
This is what Bush said. But then I understand that hatred of Bush and Haliburton renders you libs unable to listen or read well. The point is that Bush understands these matters because is way smarter than you and your ilk. Which is why all you libs can do is whine. You can't get him, can you? Because he's too smart for you.
The telecoms are seeking immunity because they know that the democrats in congress hate American corporations more than they hate Al Qaeda. They'll seek to harm patriotic corporations before the terrorists because you liberal panty waists are afraid of Al Qaeda so you try to kiss their behinds.
May 13, 2008
10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"the democrats in congress hate American corporations more than they hate Al Qaeda"
wow
May 13, 2008
10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jonah writes:
PajamaPulitzer - I would not want to argue with you as you are obviously quite intelligent in your way. Yes, much like Cheney and Rumsfield and so many others in the Bush line up, you are intelligent, but misquided. Sometime, when you are all alone, take a long look in a mirror, a long look, and analyze what motivates you, what drives you. I would guess that you will be much too scared to look very deeply.
May 14, 2008
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
notice Gene or Pajama Mama can't dispute anything. Since when do I love Dupont? What does that even mean? I was just pointing out that not every company is trying to loot the Treasury. Just in case you are having a hard time with logic. Where is the millions that Halliburton can't explain?
May 14, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Carnac the Magnificent wearing his magnificant hat holding envelope up.
Carnac; . . "Bill Clinton, an iceberg, and Halliburton" . . . (opens envelope)
. . . . . . . . . . "Name a sleezer, a lettuce for a Caesar, and someone who's not a Democrat pleaser!"
May 14, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Ted_in_Vegas: "Basically, Bad Ol' Bob went and got a job that helped enrich Iraqis while he provided for his own family."
Explain please? The deal is for exploration. No oil has been pumped.
Speaking of oil enriching Iraqis, why is unemployment so high there? Why do so many Iraqis still not have access to electricity and clean drinking water? Where's the money from all this oil going, if not to improve their infrastructure for basic needs?
May 14, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
PajamaPulitzer: "The telecoms are seeking immunity because they know that the democrats in congress hate American corporations more than they hate Al Qaeda. They'll seek to harm patriotic corporations before the terrorists because you liberal panty waists are afraid of Al Qaeda so you try to kiss their behinds."
Patriotic corporations? You mean the telecoms who have shifted massive amounts of jobs from American workers to low-cost overseas call centers?
Maybe that will make you ponder at least for a nanosecond, since their willingness to infringe on your rights as an American citizen to due process and privacy apparently don't.
May 14, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Mytwosense,
Are you old enough to appreciate Carnac the Magnificent? You really do have to get off this global corporation patriotic American workers socialism jag.
May 14, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I don't really remember the specific skits, just that it was a Johnny Carson character.
By the way, do you disagree that many US corporations routinely shift jobs from US workers to cheap overseas labor?
I'm also puzzled as to why you equate my objection to such practices with socialism.
Is this really how bad it's gotten? That any criticism of certain corporate practices now makes one a socialist?
May 14, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Mytwosense,
Regarding Johnny Carson skits; my (brilliant) Carnac joke at 8:18 was not one I remembered, but one I labored over as I put together. Just to use the word Halliburton for Spencer.
Last week you got into global corporations, corporations greed and motivation, and corporation everything with John_II and I had to take a shower afterward. Jobs go to other locations because of labor costs and unions yes, but also because of tax and regulations practices of our government. It is a world economy. Your talking points were from the old socialist book. You even cited the book. It was written by a socialist. I know not to call people communist. Maybe things are improving if you think the word socialist is bad ! !
May 14, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
First off, David Korten is not a Socialist. His book "When Corporations Rule the World" clearly criticizes ANY system that becomes too powerful, be in the government or an unregulated global corporate economy. He is not against private enterprise, in the least.
Instead, he outlines an intelligent case for how today's global corporation resembles anything BUT a truly free, private enterprise.
Yes, jobs go to other locales to cut labor costs. That does not mean that the previous labor costs were too much for the corporation to bear. It means the corporation is seeking to increase shareholder wealth in the relative short term. The largest shareholders are typically the executives who run the companies and large financial institutions. So maybe some of that "savings" might trickle down to smaller shareholders, but in general, it's a very small group of people who benefit from such practices, while a much larger group don't.
You accuse unions and taxes for this state of affairs. Yet unions and regulation of fair worker laws is what stopped child labor and exploiting workers for low wages, in this country. Do you have an explanation for why corporations that move overseas, where unions are non-existent and tax and regulation is quite attractive, take up these practices again?
I also think you should do some serious self-examination of your per$onal value$ if my critique of child labor and taking advantage of low-wage workers makes you want to "take a shower."
May 14, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Also, corporations are systematically paying less in taxes, since 1986 when Reagan's tax reforms significantly reduced their tax rates. Today, further incentives and rebates help some corporations avoid paying any taxes at all.
Yet outsourcing is increasing instead of decreasing.
May 14, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
"Patriotic corporations? You mean the telecoms who have shifted massive amounts of jobs from American workers to low-cost overseas call centers?"
Not to mention, my2sense, that these same "patriotic corporations" stopped the wiretaps when the gov't stopped paying the bill.
...Which even FURTHER illustrates this administration's incompetence.
May 14, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Mytwosense,
My brother in law was a UAW union worker until they retired him early. He only bought things make in the U.S.A., which I think is fine. Then he told me he bought a Russian tractor. In fact later, he bought another. Said he saved $10-20,00, otherwise he would have bought American made. At some point one has to be realistic about world trade. Not all foreign manufacturing is slave and child labor. I am against that. Unless in a fine restaurant in Greenwood Village, Colorado. If "taking advantage of low-wage earners," is your crusade, okay. Sounds like socialist mumbo jumbo. So you think I should do some serious self-examination of myself while I take a shower?