Year that Dick Cheney, as CEO of oil field equipment manufacturer Halliburton, called for the end to sanctions against Iraq: 2000.

All of the following revenue figures were obtained from documents Halliburton is required to file with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Date that Halliburton stated in its 10-K SEC filing that it “sees improving opportunities to provide additional support services to other United States agencies and to government agencies of other countries, including the United Kingdom”… because of an expected increase in “the magnitude of governmental spending and outsourcing for military and logistical support of the type that we provide”: December 2000 (immediately after Cheney and Bush won the 2000 election)

Maximum percentage of Halliburton’s revenue from U.S. government contracts for any year prior to the year 2001, when Dick Cheney’s became Vice president of the United States: 5%.

Percentage of Halliburton’s revenue from U.S. government contracts in 2003: 26%.

Maximum dollar amount of Halliburton revenue from U.S. government contracts for any year prior to 2001, when Dick Cheney’s became Vice president of the United States: approximately $600 million.

Dollar amount of Halliburton revenue from U.S. government contracts for 2003: approximately $4,200 million.

Percentage increase in dollar amount of Halliburton’s contracts with the U.S. government between 2000 (pre-Cheney) and 2003: approximately 600%.

Percentage increase in dollar amount of Halliburton’s total revenue, excluding contracts with the U.S. government between 2000 (pre-Cheney) and 2003: approximately 7%.

Number of companies allowed to bid against Halliburton for most of this U.S. government taxpayer revenue: 0.

Amount of money Halliburton has determined it needed to set aside to settle asbestos-related claims as of December 31, 2004: $1.4 billion (source: Halliburton’s required 8-K filing with the SEC)

Hmmm…I wonder whose economy Bush was referring to when he specifically mentioned reducing asbestos liability during his State of the Union speech on February 2, 2005 (“our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.”)?

Halliburton Analysis:

Dick Cheney and his buddies from the big oil companies in the energy sector certainly seem to be pulling the strings. What I find most interesting are the sections in Halliburton’s December 2000 10-K (a form that publicly traded companies must file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)) that were written immediately after Cheney and Bush won the 2000 election. The 10-K’s analysis of the company’s business environment says that Halliburton “sees improving opportunities to provide additional support services to other United States agencies and to government agencies of other countries, including the United Kingdom.”

How in the world could Halliburton know that the United States and that the United Kingdom, the U.S.’s primary ally in the Iraq invasion, would have such increased need for the company’s services? As mentioned in the previous section, the 10-K actually gets even more specific, citing an expected increase in “the magnitude of governmental spending and outsourcing for military and logistical support of the type that we provide”. This seems to be an almost specific reference to the multi-billion dollar contract that Halliburton won for logistical support of the military in Iraq without having to bid against competing firms. The fact that they were the only company contacted for this lucrative multi-billion dollar contract, despite not having any similarly-sized government contracts before and having been accused of overcharging the government before, is suspicious in and of itself. But the fact that they seem to have known they would have opportunities like this more than two years before the fact is positively ominous. It makes me wonder why, as Colin Powell, phrased it, Cheney had “a fever…an absolute fever” to go to war in Iraq.

Halliburton has recently restructured its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) that has been involved in the Iraqi contract controversy into two segments, (1) Energy and Chemicals and (2) Government and Infrastructure. The most obvious reason for this restructuring, to my view, is to ensure that it’s future business (after Bush’s term expires in 2009) will be insulated against any lawsuits or other liabilities arising from Halliburton’s overcharging the U.S. government (and thus the American taxpayers) and its obvious insider influence on the defense contracting process, once their cover is blown by a new administration. Halliburton's most recent 10-K SEC filings indicate that they plan to spin off Kellog Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has come under scrutiny for its supsicious activities with its Federal contracts. This confirms my earlier supsicions that Halliburton wanted to relieve itself of any liabilities thatg coem to light after Cheney is no longer Vice President and unable to "run cover" for them to prevent disclosure of their shady dealings.

In what I can only assume to be deference to Cheney’s fossil fuel energy industry friends, I have yet to see the Bush administration pass up any opportunity to reduce protections for the environment or reign in the excesses of the major oil and chemical companies. Even his hydrogen proposals would mostly benefit the major oil and chemical companies, since they are the primary manufacturers of hydrogen.

Let me state unequivocably that I hold no grudge against the large chemical companies. Their employees work hard under what are often hazardous conditions. They also employ some very talented people who do some great research.  My father worked for a chemical company, a company that expected hard work from its employees but treated them very well. These companies provide very valuable, even critical, products and services. And they will continue to do so even after oil ceases to be the primary energy source for the world.

However, I think that any company, and particularly large, multinational corporations, need to be held accountable for and take responsibility for their actions that affect the American people. Because these companies are depleting non-renewable natural resources that cause most of the pollution in the world and produce the most greenhouse gases that are creating global warming, there is a role for government to account for these external effects that the market economy does not include in pricing process.

We are, in effect, subsidizing the profits of these companies to the tune of billions of dollars per year.