Hicks made Gov. Bush rich, and Bush made sure to reward him with government funds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2675When confronted with the seamy details of the land grab, Bush professed ignorance. But Schieffer, the team's former president, has testified that he kept Bush aware of the land transfers. In October 1990, Bush also let this slip to a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "The idea of making a land play, absolutely, to plunk the field down in the middle of a big piece of land, that's kind of always been the strategy."
It was a strategy that would have an enormous payoff for Bush personally.
After he became governor of Texas, Bush put his all of his assets into a blind trust, with one notable exception: his stake in the Rangers. Schieffer kept Bush apprised of the owner's efforts to sell the team to Thomas O. Hicks, the chairman of Hicks, Muse, Tate and Furst, Inc., a firm that specializes in leveraged buyouts and until recently owned AMFM, Inc., the nation's largest chain of radio stations. Hicks and employees of his companies are Bush’s No. 4 career patron, having given him at least $290,400.
25-Fold Return on InvestmentIn 1998, Hicks helped provide Bush with an even greater windfall. He bought the Texas Rangers for $250 million, three times what Bush and his partners had paid ten years earlier. The new stadium and the real estate around it greatly boosted the final sale price. And, since his partners had upped Bush's stake in the team from 1.8 to 11.8 percent, his cut from the proceeds of the sale was $14.9 million, a twenty-five-fold return on his investment of $606,302. Rainwater, who had put far more money into the team than Bush, made $25 million.
Just as important as the cash, however, was the cachet that came with the deal's success. The Ballpark at Arlington finally opened in April 1994, just as Bush was running for governor. He touted the new stadium as a win-win proposition for taxpayers and the team. "Am I going to benefit off it financially?" he asked reporters. He answered his own question: "I hope so." Four years later, everyone would know by how much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2002-08-02/pols_capitol.htmlSo it's easy to understand why the big wheeler-dealers are slightly touchy whenever somebody suggests that the Emperor might be, well, a bit underdressed. That's what happened last week when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman took a few hard shots at President George W. Bush, and more specifically, at the record of the University of Texas Investment Management Co., or UTIMCO. In the course of recounting Bush's often questionable "Steps to Wealth," Krugman treated the former governor's role in UTIMCO with a heavy hand. Bush "changed the rules governing
endowment," wrote Krugman, "eliminating the requirements to disclose 'all details concerning the investments made and income realized,' and to have 'a well-recognized performance measurement service' assess investment results." (That is, it became more difficult for the public to know or understand what was being done with public money.) Moreover, by privatizing the management of UT's financial assets, []bKrugman charged, "In effect, the money was put under the control of UTIMCO's chairman, Tom Hicks. Under his direction, at least $450 million was invested in private funds managed by Mr. Hicks' business associates and major Republican Party donors." (Hicks' term as chair expired in 1999.)
There was a bit more, but those were the harshest charges -- and they've been made before, much closer to home, most notably by Houston Chronicle reporter R.G. Ratcliffe in articles published in March 1999. "Almost a third of the $1.7 billion directed by UTIMCO, $252 million," reported Ratcliffe, "has been committed to funds run by Hicks' business associates or friends. Another $205 million has gone to five funds run by major Republican political donors." The Chronicle and other state papers added that because most of UTIMCO's meetings were private, it was difficult to determine the details of such investments, including possible conflicts of interest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1797_300/59086099/p10/article.jhtml?term=
In many respects, UTIMCO had been empowered to write its own rules, which suited Tom Hicks fine. After UTIMCO officially took over from the regents' investment committees in early 1996, with Hicks as its first chairman, all of its business was done behind closed doors. The directors often gathered for their monthly board meetings at the lavish offices of Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst in downtown Dallas rather than at UTIMCO's own more modest quarters in an Austin building named for Lady Bird Johnson. "It was a hell of a lot more convenient for all of us to meet there," Hicks noted. Largely freed from public accountability, UTIMCO embarked on a series of deals that raised serious questions about conflict of interest and political favoritism. Again, there was nothing unlawful about these decisions, all of which were vetted by the powerhous law firm of Vinson & Elkins; they merely reflect the way business is often done behind closed doors--even, or especially, when the public's money is at stake. Friends and long-time associates of Thomas Hicks, and his firm's past and future business partners--as well as major Republican contributors and political supporters of the Bush family--received hundreds of millions of dollars from the University of Texas investment funds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
