Judicious Asininity

This is the Archive Page. Click Here for Main Page

Wed Apr 30, 2008

If Wright sinks Obama's bid, he wins

It will prove "America is racist"

"Racist America won't elect a black". That's what Wright will say.

The truth is, America will elect an African-American, provided he or she puts America first, and their ethnicity a distant second. Colin Powell and Condi Rice do that. They serve America first and pay no attention to the color of their skins. That is as it should be. They may devote time to influencing the African-American community but that is in a positive direction.

Obama tried to portray himself as a candidate who put America first, albeit from a socialist perspective, and appealed to "educated" whites. But then his association with Wright, an African American racist, became an issue that the MSM could not ignore. Nor could Obama. Nor could Wright.

Obama tried to distance himself from his 20-year association with his spiritual mentor. That was a tricky operation, especially since the spiritual mentor knows more about Obama than has been revealed in the media, so far. In addition, Wright has an ego at least as big as, if not bigger than, Obama's.

This puts Obama in an impossible position. Breaking with Wright puts Wright in the center of a media frenzy based on race. Sticking up for Wright puts Obama in the center of a media frenzy based on race. Obama's image as a post-racial candidate has taken a fatal battering.

Wright now seems to be hell-bent on dooming Obama. Consciously or not, Wright's recent activities have caused Obama's polling numbers to fall.

Hillary will benefit, maybe, but McCain will win.

Laura Bush has solid accomplishments

Even if she wasn't elected

Lucianne links to a Newsbuster fisking of a hit piece on Laura Bush by that brilliant SF Chronicle columnist, Mark Morford. Unfortunately, NewBusters didn't do a good job of defending Laura Bush:

So why has Moford gotten his panties in a bunch? He thinks that Laura Bush wasted her eight years in office and didn't do anything to "make any real difference. A single issue. A single notable appearance. A single daring, interesting, engaging ... anything."

To which I ask of this fellow one thing: Who elected her to "do" anything?

To which I'll answer for him so he won't have to check in with some strong liberal woman to help him out: No one elected her to anything and she is not necessarily SUPPOSED to "do" anything with her eight years in the White House.

First Ladies have used their office to great effect. Eleanor Roosevelt comes to mind. Laura Bush has also been effective in her role, even if she flies under the media radar. Check her web site. Her schedule is full and she is using her position to promote worthy causes. The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Global Initiative is a case in point, and Mrs. Bush gave her time to that worthy cause. She isn't sitting around in the White House parlor powdering her nose. She has a brutal schedule, promoting causes dear to her heart, and ours.

Laura Bush recognizes that First Lady may not be an official position but it does carry great responsibility and power. She is doing a great job as First Lady. She is doing it in her way, quietly and effectively. Librarians are like that.

Aren't high gas prices green?

So why do politicians talk about reducing gas taxes?

Both McCain and Clinton have talked about lowering gas taxes.

But, higher gas prices result in consumers reducing their consumption. They drive less or they trade in their gas guzzlers for more fuel efficient vehicles. Autoblog has a post on the impact of high gas prices on the SUV market:

The rocketing cost of gasoline, and diesel fuel, is having a ripple effect on the SUV market. With consumers trading in their behemoths by the thousands in exchange for more frugal transportation, dealers are stuck with a surplus of unwanted sport-utes sitting on their lots with values dissolving.

You can't be for reducing the national carbon footprint and against high gas prices without being a hypocrite or a fool, or both.

The real solution to higher gas prices is summed up in Robert Samuelson's column in the Washington Post:

Start drilling.

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality," writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.' "

Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout "energy independence." This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or pandering (probable).

You can't be for energy independence and against drilling in the US without being a hypocrite or a fool, or both.

Sun Apr 27, 2008

Gingrich, global warming sucker

How come such smart people are so gullible?

You've all seen the ad with Gingrich posing with Pelosi promoting the global warming zealots (morons?) agenda. Here are a few simple questions for both suckers (some questions have more than one right answer).

1. Over the last few million years the climate has been:

a) Just perfect, until George Bush became president
b) Mostly ice ages with Canada and and the northern states buried under massive ice sheets

2. If CO₂ concentrations increased ten fold:

a) the Earth would turn into Venus
b) the Earth would turn into a snow ball
c) plants would be happy
d) Mother Earth could start rebuilding its reserves of fossil fuels

3. If CO₂ was eliminated from the atmosphere:

a) Al Gore would be happy
b) All plants would be dead
c) All plants and animals (including us) would be dead

4. Which produces less CO₂?

a) Cooking using cow dung
b) Cooking using local vegetation
c) Cooking using a modern cooking device

5. Is subsidizing ethanol a good idea?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Yes, because it shows we care about global warming
d) No, because it diverts resources from food production

My answers are:

1. b
2. c
3. c
4. c
5. d

Fri Apr 25, 2008

Why McCain has a good chance of winning

It's because the base doesn't like him much

The GOP is on the outs with the voting public. That was demonstrated in 2006. A candidate that the GOP base wants is not going to get the crossover votes needed for victory.

The War in Iraq has gone about as well as most wars that America has won, i.e. poorly in the beginning, turning around as the Americans learned what was needed for victory, and then going into the home stretch, where complete victory was attained. In this war, America is starting to turn it around. McCain has supported the war but opposed the way it was being run. As the success of the surge filters through the MSM to the crossover voters, McCain is going to look like the best choice for CIC. He pushed for a change in strategy and, lo and behold, it worked.

The economy is in better shape than the MSM coverage suggests. The Democrats are pushing for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. They don't seem to be aware of the impact this will have on middle America. McCain opposed the cuts, but only because they weren't matched by spending cuts. It was excessive spending that cost the GOP in 2006. McCain can come out on the right side for supporting spending cuts and tax cuts.

On immigration, global warming and economic populism, he is barely distinguishable from Obama and Clinton. The base hates that, but a lot of crossover voters will be pleased that a GOP candidate shares their concerns.

He's old but Obama is so green and Clinton so mean, it won't hurt as much as I originally thought.

McCain is a frustrating candidate. There is much to admire in him. Jim Miller documents his courage:

John McCain may not have known those exact numbers when he volunteered to be a carrier pilot, to be an aviator, but he must have known something about the risks of his chosen profession, even in peace time. And he must have known, from the terrible losses, just how much extra risk he was taking on, each time he went out on a mission over North Vietnam. In spite of that, he volunteered for combat, and volunteered for another carrier after a terrible accident on the Forrestal that almost killed him. In other words, he actively sought risks most* would flee from. Even most of those who are braver than average.

But he, and other naval aviators, kept going out on their missions — in spite of the fact that they thought their targets were virtually worthless. Which makes the courage shown by McCain and his fellow aviators even more extraordinary. They went out on missions they thought had no point, missions they thought would not contribute to winning the war. But McCain, and his fellow aviators, persevered anyway, out of patriotism, out of loyalty to each other, and out of what they called "professionalism", though that word hardly seems large enough to hold their concept.

How many men have as much raw courage as John McCain? There is no simple way to measure courage, no Courage Quotient test that we can give prospective naval aviators, so it is impossible to say exactly how extraordinary he is. But I will say this much: McCain is certainly one in a thousand, probably one in ten thousand, and possibly one in a hundred thousand, as far as courage goes.

And there is much that makes the base unhappy. His stance on illegal immigration is a prime example.

But, McCain is the one GOP candidate who can distance himself from Bush, appeal to the crossovers, and hold enough of the base to win.

Thu Apr 24, 2008

Back from Beantown

Nice place to run a marathon

I had an enjoyable time in Boston running the marathon and exploring the downtown. I relied on the MTA to get around and that worked well. I also walked a lot to help me recover from the race.

Now its back to the real world and the election. More posts to come.

Fri Apr 18, 2008

Politicians and self deprecating humor

It says a lot about the person if they can laugh at themselves

The Democratic debate was a deadly serious affair with nary a laugh to be had. One cannot imagine Obama deliberately telling a joke against himself. Jim Miller wonders if his wife even has a sense of humor:

Wonder if she knows any good lawyer jokes? In my experience, lawyers often know the best ones. But Michelle Obama doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor. It's hard to imagine her saying, "Professional courtesy", or "Not enough mud", or any of the other famous punch lines to lawyer jokes.

If Hillary jokes, it comes across as forced and scripted. Her husband, on the other hand, was a consummate politician, who could tell stories against himself. Here's a sample from the 1997 Radio & TV Correspondents’ Dinner:

I want all of you to know that, until recently, I had planned out a really dramatic entrance to this dinner. (Laughter.) And then, George Bush stole my thunder. (Laughter.) I mean, look at this -- this guy is 72 years old, he jumps out of a plane at 12,000 feet, he lands without a scratch. (Laughter.) I fall six inches, and I'm crippled up for six months. It's ridiculous. (Applause.)

Now, as you might imagine, my injured knee adds complications to my schedule. In fact, you know, just when I was on the way over here tonight -- (laughter) -- as you have seen, my press secretary, Mike McCurry, just handed me a note.

According to wire reports, former President Bush has just bungee jumped off the Seattle Space Needle. (Laughter.)

The Democrat's debate had serious competition from a couple of stand-up comedians. Mitt Romney gave the top 10 reasons why he dropped out of the race. Here's Number 4:

When his wife realized he couldn’t win the GOP nomination, my fundraising dried up.

Then Dick Cheney took the podium and delivered the best lines of the night. Heres one LAT report:

But Cheney said he’s become convinced of global warming, “or, as I prefer to call it, spring. I don’t want to sound like an alarmist, but it’s going to be a lot warmer.”

Still, he’s doing his part to cut back on carbon emissions: “Every time I rush to the hospital, I insist on a hybrid ambulance.”

Cheney said he’s been musing about his public image and asked his wife if she minded that people call him “Darth Vader.”

“Not at all, it humanizes you,” he said she responded.
...
But he told the media to “go easy on Sen. (Hillary) Clinton on the whole business of running from gunfire in Bosnia. She made an honest mistake. She confused the Bosnia trip with the time I took her hunting.”

It's hard to imagine Hillary or Barack laughing at themselves. Or John McCain, for that matter. That's why he needs a running mate with a sense of humor.

Mon Apr 14, 2008

Al Qaeda's sanctuary

Pakistan? No, England

Melanie Phillips explains how the British judicial system has turned England into a sanctuary for radical Muslims, and Al Qaeda:

This is the surreal situation following the Appeal Court judgment this week on Abu Qatada, who is currently in jail fighting deportation to his native Jordan, where he was convicted in his absence on terrorist charges in both 1999 and 2000.

The judgment, which overturned a ruling by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that Abu Qatada should be deported to Jordan, ruled instead that he could stay because, if Jordan prosecuted him, the evidence against him might have been obtained through torture and thus be in breach of human rights law.
...
Between them, these judgments have left the Government's anti-terrorism strategy in ruins. Despite Tony Blair's declaration after the 2005 London bombings that "the rules of the game have changed" and that terrorist suspects would henceforth be thrown out of the country, not one such suspect has been deported.

In the case of Abu Qatada, this notorious godfather of terrorism who turned Britain into the European hub of Al Qaeda - causing foreign security services to dub it "Londonistan" - has now made a monkey of us yet again.

How on earth have we got ourselves into such an insane position?

The reason is the way the judges have interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights. In 1989, the European Court of Human Rights extended the scope of the Convention's prohibition against torture, making it impossible to deport suspected terrorists to any country suspected of abusing human rights.

And the English courts applied this ruling far more zealously than those in any other country.

This meant that, even if people turning up at immigration control presented a clear danger to this country, Britain let them all in if they claimed they would be ill-treated if they were sent back home. And by the same absurd reasoning, once they were in the courts wouldn't allow them to be sent back.

So, what are all these untouchables doing as they while their days on welfare? Perhaps this report provides a clue:

BRITISH police and security agencies are monitoring 30 terrorism plots, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said in extracts of a newspaper interview released today.

"We now face a threat level that is severe. It's not getting any less, it's actually growing,'' she said in an interview to be published tomorrow in News of the World.

"We task the police and the security agencies with protecting us ... There are 22,000 individuals they are monitoring. There are 200 networks. There are 30 active plots,'' she said.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour government is seeking to extend pre-charge detention of terrorism suspects to 42 days from the current 28-day limit.

But Smith faces a tough task steering the controversial provisions through parliament.

One would have thought 9/11 and 7/7 would have alerted the Brits to a problem. But, apparently not. What will it take? A dirty bomb attack in Central London?

Sat Apr 12, 2008

Obama is losing it

The more the public learns the worse he'll do

The late Kim Beazly was the eduction minister in the Australian Labor Party government of the 1970s. He once said:

When I joined the Labor Party, it contained the cream of the working class. But as I look about me now all I see are the dregs of the middle class. And what I want to know is when you middle class perverts are going to stop using the Labor Party as a spiritual spitoon.

The Australian Labor Party occupies the same position in the political spectrum as the American Democratic party. Obama's latest gaffe reveals a similar schism in the Democratic base. Working class white Americans were once the heart and soul of the Democratic party. They flocked to the party when FDR "rescued" the country from the great depression and went on to win WW2. Now they have been marginalized by the special-interest groups that compete for power inside the party.

If the Democratic party nominates Obama, this one quote will doom his candidacy with blue collar America:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

In 2006, the GOP found to its cost that it doesn't pay to offend your base. In 2008, as in 1980, the Democrats are going to learn the same lesson.

Thu Apr 10, 2008

Obama and Mugabe

What's the connection?

Prestopundit has done some digging into the views expressed by Obama's father:

If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father. Obama tells us, "All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own." (p. 220) And what was that image? It was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals .." (p. 278) What is more, Obama tells us that, "It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230)

It turns out Barack H. Obama senior believed in the socialist dogma that has done so much damage in Africa since the end of the colonial era. Prestopundit has turned up a paper that Obama senior wrote for the East Africa Journal (published July, 1965):

Barack Obama's father, a Harvard trained economist, attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western 'third way" leader Tom Mboya from the socialist left, siding with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga

Some of his positions seem remarkably similar to the policies implemented by Robert Mugabe:

1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)

2. Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)
...
5. Obama advocates an "active" rather than a "passive" program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28) "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. " (pp. 29-30)

6. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)

We know how well such policies turned out in Zimbabwe. His father was a "typical black socialist", yet Obama seems not to have made the connection between his father's positions and the disastrous consequences when African leaders have implemented policies based on those positions.

Note the reference to Oginga Odinga. During the recent unrest in Kenya, I noted Obama's partisan interest in Kenyan politics on the side of Raila Odinga, the son of Oginga Odinga:

It seems that the Hussein in Barack Hussein Obama is not so silent after all. Phillips links to Atlas Shrugs and cites reports of the close link between Obama and Odinga:
And here is the biggest non-surprise: Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a "close personal friendship" with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior.

When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi: Obama's bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila's "stooge."
Obama still maintains his tribal identity. Does he also maintain sympathy for his father's religion?

And I might add a further question? Does he also maintain sympathy for his father's disastrous socialist politics?

Wed Apr 09, 2008

The Haditha nightmare continues

Lance Corporal Justin L. Sharrat exonerated, but at what cost?

I've blogged on Haditha and linked to other sites that have documented injustices unleashed on the Kilo Company marines by Time Magazine, Congressman John Murtha, and elements in the military.

The Marine Corps has fully exonerated Justin Sharrat but he has been left with legal bills of $359,000. The Marine Corps isn't paying that. The media who smeared this brave young man aren't paying that. Former marine Congressman John Murtha isn't paying that.

So, it comes back to ordinary people to show their support for Justin L. Sharrat by helping him pay those enormous legal bills.

Donations should be sent to:

SHARRAT DEFENSE TRUST
PO BOX 96600
WASHINGTON, DC 20090-6600

Make your check payable to the Justin Sharrat Legal Defense Fund.

And don't forget Marine Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich. He still faces charges. Send all donations to legal counsel:

NEAL A. PUCKETT - Wuterich Defense Fund
2181 Jamieson Ave #1505,
Alexandria, VA 22314

Please note on check "Wuterich Defense Fund".

Mon Apr 07, 2008

Is Iraq the main battefront in the war against Al Qaeda?

Democrats say no, Al Qaeda says yes

Osama Bin Ladin's links the war in Iraq to the Palestinian jihad in his latest tape:

Bin Laden also called on Palestinians who are unable to fight in the "land of Al-Quds" — a Muslim reference to Jerusalem — to join the al-Qaida fight and the holy war, or jihad, in Iraq.

"The nearest field of jihad today to support our people in Palestine is the Iraqi field," said bin Laden in the approximately 11-minute tape, excerpts of which were first broadcast Thursday by pan-Arab Al-Jazeera television. The entire tape appeared Friday on an Islamic militant Web site.

He didn't say "come to Afghanistan or Pakistan". He told the faithful to fight in Jerusalem or Iraq.

On the other side, or should that be, on the same side, Clinton and Obama claim the central front in the war is Afghanistan. Here's Obama:

The war in Iraq has emboldened the Taliban, which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan.

Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan – a thousand miles from Iraq.

The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America’s enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is the area where the 9/11 attacks were planned. This is where Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants still hide. This is where extremism poses its greatest threat. Yet in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have pursued flawed strategies that are too distant from the needs of the people, and too timid in pursuit of our common enemies.

This speech is proof that Obama is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.

Neither is Clinton:

"Part Of The Reason That We Didn't Go After Bin Laden
As Aggressively As We Should Have Is We Were Distracted By A War Of Choice." Sen. Clinton: "But I think one of the things that's been left out is Iraq. And part of the reason that we neglected Afghanistan, part of the reason that we didn't go after bin Laden as aggressively as we should have is we were distracted by a war of choice."

Of course they are both pandering to their base, the moveon.org wing of the Democratic party. It seems that the other wing is represented by Lieberman alone.

Thu Apr 03, 2008

Is nothing Holy to radical Muslims?

Even in their own religion?

We well remember the Taliban took great pleasure in destroying the giant images of Buddha in the cliffs of Bamiyan. We should recall that the so-called Palestinians have frequently vandalized or destroyed Christian and Jewish holy sites. But, it is hard to believe that the custodians of Islam's holiest city would destroy their own religious heritage.

Yet that is precisely what the Saudi authorities have done. Infodel Bloggers has a post entitled Saudis Bulldozed Mohammed's House To Build Public Toilet. They quote a LA Times review of Steve Coll's new book, The Bin Ladens:

The results have been particularly appalling in the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina, where Saudi-financed construction projects undertaken by the Bin Ladens essentially have eradicated the historic pilgrimage sites.

Not too many years ago, the remains of the Prophet Mohammed's house in Mecca were bulldozed to construct a public toilet.

Why such destruction?

These projects not only allow the Saudis to profit more from the hajj, which religious Muslims are obliged to make at least once, but also have imposed a Wahabi straitjacket on the pilgrimage. Formerly, Shia and sufic pilgrims observed the hajj with all sorts of individual rituals and visits to shrines and tombs they referred. Now, thanks to the Bin Ladens' demolition and construction projects only a Wahabi version of the pilgrimage is possible.

The radical Muslims, and that includes our erstwhile allies, the Saudis, are almost as intolerant of fellow Muslims as they are of us infidels.

It can't be just coincidence that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers, and a large percentage of the suicide bombers entering Iraq, are from Saudi Arabia.

Tue Apr 01, 2008

Thomas Sowell for Treasury Secretary

Except nobody in Washington will like his approach

In a piece at Real Clear Politics, Thomas Sowell explains why the Federal Reserve System came into being and what it was supposed to do:

Such thinking led in 1914 to the creation of the Federal Reserve System.

Unlike other countries, the United States had gotten along for generations without a central government bank. But President Woodrow Wilson thought that the monetary system of the country was too important to let private bankers play such a large role as J.P. Morgan had played in 1907.

Describing the Federal Reserve System created during his administration, Woodrow Wilson said: "It provides a currency which expands as it is needed and contracts when it is not needed."

The power to expand and contract the currency was "put into the hands of a public board of disinterested officers of the Government itself."

Their task was to prevent financial panics, bank failures and a catastrophic contraction of demand. It sounded wonderful -- and such sounds count for a lot in politics.

In reality, however, the biggest financial panic in American history occurred under the Federal Reserve System in 1929, followed by thousands of bank failures and an unprecedented contraction of the money supply by one-third during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
...
Being a disinterested government official does not mean that you know what you are doing. That fact gets left out of the equation in a lot of proposals for new government programs.

That last paragraph is a zinger. It seems to be an automatic assumption on the left, and large swathes on the right, that governments actually know what they are doing. Mostly, governments don't know what they are doing, because the people in government rarely know what they are doing.

I suppose my views are a little jaundiced. My employer has determined that our organization must be SOX compliant. So, instead of meeting new business challenges, we have been implementing security systems and controls according to the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley act. Our rate of new development has slowed to a crawl, while the paper-work required to do anything has grown exponentially.

I find some support for my anecdotal experience with SOX compliance in this academic paper:

The SOX legislation is a mandate that is bringing new attention to IT security as a critical part of the risk management framework for the dual purposes of certifying internal controls and attesting to the accuracy of financial information. As organizations evaluate their capabilities to meet SOX compliance requirements, they must ensure that the infrastructure supports secure identity management with controls implemented, such as information assurance and policy-based access controls. Given that most organizations have a finite annual budget that is allocated to all investments, the regulations accruing from the SOX Act have forced companies to undertake a series of dramatic changes in the way they appropriate resources to activities such as IT security and internal control. This can have some broader ramifications on firm profitability, market structure and social welfare, many of which were unintended when policy makers first formulated this Act. This article is an attempt to provide some insights into the trade offs and unintended consequences that would be of interest to academics, industry executives and policy makers alike.

Our analysis reveals that mandatory investments in regulatory compliance may have several unintended consequences such as reduction in optimal production quantities, a decrease in the extent of market competition and an overall reduction in social welfare. In particular, our results highlight that smaller sized firms are more drastically affected than larger firms and this process if unchecked, may lead to a severe long term impact on the operations of both capital as well as product markets. Because small cap firms are an important engine of economic growth and technological innovation, the ripple effects of regulations like the SOA will be felt throughout the economy. One major implication of this is that some changes in regulations need to be enforced sooner than later by the federal government.

The disinterested government officials who drafted the Sarbanes-Oxley act did not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.

Go to Main Page

Judicious Search

Asinine Stats

Most Popular Entries

Archives

Syndicate RSS

News Links

Contact Form

Your Email

Subject

Message