The free and efficient movement of capital is helping to create the greatest prosperity in human history," Cox told reporters at the White House yesterday. "The natural enemies of this economic marvel are fraud and unfair dealing.
Nice platitudes, but how will he stock up (no pun intended) in actually doing his job? Is "free and efficient" code for "less regulation, more freedom for an unbalanced economic system?" To continue from the Washington Post article:
The president formally nominated Rep. Christopher Cox to serve as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday, setting the stage for a dramatic shift in the agency's priorities, which over the past two years have been focused on new regulation and stepped-up enforcement.
Cox, 52, a Republican from California, has taken pro-business positions on many issues. He sponsored legislation that curtailed plaintiffs' right to bring lawsuits alleging securities violations and opposed a regulatory drive to treat stock options as expenses, fighting on the side of the technology firms that constitute much of his Orange County constituency.
Of some interest to me is the appointment of another politician basically friendly to the administration's point of view to an important position (see Porter Goss). The proverbial fox guarding henhouse, though he does appear to have the smarts for the job. Also, it seems the guy once wanted to be a judge, but Sen. Boxer was planning to block his appt. If so, times are a bit different.
General assumptions of a novice, but rubs me the wrong way all the same. Here are some talking points against the guy. This is just a run of the mill reason why it's a bad idea to have these people in power ... you know, even if they were not SOBs.