Christopher Cox And The Right Set Up Wall Street's Fall

[marmar]

from OurFuture.org:



Cox And The Right Set Up Wall Street's Fall
By Isaiah J. Poole

October 3rd, 2008 - 10:58am ET



In 2005, our co-director Robert Borosage warned readers about the travesty of appointing Christopher Cox to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Business Week described corporate lobbyists as "almost giddy" at the prospect of Cox at the head of the SEC because Cox has devoted his career to shielding corporate executives from accountability. As an attorney, Cox was sued for touting a flimflam operator to regulators in a scam that ended up bilking small investors of some $130 million. As a legislator, Cox spearheaded the effort to pass the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which essentially gave corporate executives a "license to lie" about their stocks' future prospects and sought to shield CEOs, their lawyers and accountants from investor lawsuits. Cox also championed leaving stock options off the corporate books, encouraging the very instrument that gave CEOs a personal stake in fixing the books so they could cash in. President Bush has made a man who contributed directly to the explosion of corporate fraud and abuse that cost investors trillions of dollars the chief cop on the corporate beat. With the heat turned down on corporate cons, small investors are likely to get burned.

An article in The New York Times on Friday details how one rule changed in the mold of Cox's doctrinaire deregulatory mindset helped set up the collapse on Wall Street we're now dealing with. That rule, pushed by lobbyists from the nation's largest investment firms, allowed them in 2004 to add billions of dollars of debt to their books without the reserves to cover them. Then, it allowed the firms to police their own risk, using complex computer models.

The coup dé grace took place after Cox arrived at the SEC a year later, when he failed to give a high priority to an office tasked with monitoring institutions with $4 trillion in assets.

"Since March 2007, the office has not had a director," the Times reported. "And as of last month, the office had not completed a single inspection since it was reshuffled by Mr. Cox more than a year and a half ago."

It is reminiscent of the failures of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which since 2000 embraced the right-wing ideology of minimal regulation, voluntary compliance and no serious commitment to having cops on the beat to protect the public interest. The failures at the CPSC led to tainted food and toxic toys. The failures at the SEC, as everyone now knows, has brought up to the precipice of a potentially far more wide-reaching collapse of the economy. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104003/cox-and-right-set-wall-streets-fall

[barbtries]

1. thank you for posting this

enlightening.

[seemslikeadream]

2. Thanks

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. The predecessor to Cox, William Donaldson was forced out of his job

Donaldson was appointed by the Chimp and was a Republican but he was a better man than Cox. Donaldson warned about the need to regulate the "dark markets". He urged the Republican Congress to enact legislation to regulate hedge funds. He was in favor of at least requiring them to register with the SEC. Donaldson usually sided with the two Democratic members of the SEC board, against the two Republicans. Donaldson received nothing but flak from the Republican-controlled Congress. Eventually, Donaldson had to resign to spend more time with his family, but the truth is that he was forced out so that Cox could take over.

According to the article:

"Mr. Cox dismantled a risk management office created by Mr. Donaldson that was assigned to watch for future problems."

[bertman]

4. Is there any chance at all that the Democrats put up any ACTIVE resistance to Cox' appointment?

I don't remember the proceedings.

Thanks for the post.

[alfredo]

6. I think Cox said he's going to leave in January.

[bertman]

8. Sorry for the confusion, alfredo, but I was referring to his original appointment as SEC chairman.

[alfredo]

10. So he was a recess appointment?

[bertman]

11. What difference does it make? He was NOMINATED for the postion, so that means he had to be

approved by the Congress, or Senate at minimum. My question is: Did the Democrats oppose or support his nomination? Given his horrific background it would be hard to believe they voted for him without some kind of a fight.

[alfredo]

12. Look for their voting record.

[shanti]

5. christopher cox

is this christopher NIXON cox??

[calimary]

7. No.

It was Edward Finch Cox (married Tricia Nixon). christopher cox is a California ex-congressman who made "good" with dubya.

[shanti]

13. ok

edward and tricia do have a son named christoper cox tho...i just wondered if the christopher cox in question was their son.

[Hubert Flottz]

9. Another recycled repuke loser...

A total hack...Heckuva Job Chris...