Public Choice scholars needed
In "Goodbye to Reforms of 2002" Floyd Norris of the New York Times writes:
Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, almost unanimously, by a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate. Now a Democratic Congress is gutting it with the apparent approval of the Obama administration.
What theory of regulation or public choice gives us that result?
(Not that I'm complaining. Sarbanes-Oxley seems to have been a mostly bad law.)
Some useful background from someone who opposes Sar-Ox.
We could have lessened the crash by maybe 50% if we had abandoned Mark to Market accounting when this whole thing started to slide. It is funny that "reforms" like Mark to Market and Sarbannes-Oxley were supposed to prevent what occurred. Mainly they were to prevent another Enron, but in fact we now know that Madoff and several other ponzi schemes were going on at the time. Generally when lawmakers react quickly to downturns or scandals they screw things up.
Posted by: kyle8 | November 10, 2009 at 06:24 AM
"What theory of regulation or public choice gives us that result?"
The theory that George Bush and the GOP cared more about covering their ass in the leftist press than they did about the long term health of the economy.
Shocking, I know.
Posted by: Greg Ransom | November 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM
the theory that public choice means choosing to vote the incumbents back in. Duh.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie | November 10, 2009 at 04:43 PM
The theory that Sar-Ox was passed as part of national hysteria (led by voters as well) and is now being regretted quietly, after the fact.
Would that the CPSIA received the same sort of bipartisan reconsideration now, instead of only by Republicans.
Posted by: John Thacker | November 11, 2009 at 01:32 PM