Saturday, June 04, 2005

Bush nominates Cox to payoff debts to Wall Street


Christopher Cox. Posted by Hello

Bush has nominated California Republican Rep. Christopher Cox to "reshape" the Securities and Exchange Commission. A fitting companion to his nomination of Bolton to Represent the U.S. at the U.N. Both fit the Cheney/Roveagenda.

According to the NYT:

"A major recipient of contributions from business groups, the accounting profession and Silicon Valley, he [Cox]has fought against accounting rules that would give less favorable treatment to corporate mergers and executive stock options. He opposes taxes on dividends and capital gains. And he helped to steer through the House a bill making investor lawsuits more difficult."

......

"'But as a result [of Cox's nomination],' [William Lerach, a prominent shareholder lawyer in San Diego] argued,' the policies it [the S.E.C.] sets could be devastating for investors. I would expect that Cox will use his authority for an across-the-board assault on investor protection,' Mr. Lerach said. 'In my experience with him, I found him to be virulently anti-investor and unrestrained in his desire to gut the securities laws. It's hard to think of a worse choice for the S.E.C. This is a world-class payback to the corporate world."

The Cheney/Rove agenda is coming into more and more clear focus with this nomination. Exploit their right-wing religious constituency in order to free business (Wall Street, in particular) of all restraints. This is ultimately the Cath-22 in the Republican strategy. It is indebted to two contradictory groups: business, which funds its campaigns (and much else Republican) and the religious right-wing, whose very lives are dependent on controlling unrestrained business, particularly small investors, whose safety net will be destroyed by Cox's policies.

Just remember: whenever you think Bush has gone as far off the map as is posssible (eg. the Bolton nomination), he will fool you and out do even himself (eg. the Cox nomination). One keeps asking: on how many fronts at a time can we fight?

No comments: