AT ISSUE: Schaffer's questionable oil dealings
Michael Huttner
Published May 13, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
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.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
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
7:50 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
8:53 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
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
ollie writes:
Earl; can't handle the truth? Go back to playing with your sheep.
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
11:32 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
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
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
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
8:29 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
9:56 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
11:47 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.