To your right, you see the Chairman of the SEC, Christopher Cox. Today, coming straight out of left field, perhaps in the A-4 Skyhawk he flew in Vietnam, Senator John McCain said said:
“The Chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and in my view has betrayed the public's trust,” McCain said. “If I were President today, I would fire him.”
My first question on this is why? Did he create this situation. Should he have somehow 'regulated' harder. Wouldn't you, the formerly great deregulator, have been even more up his behind in general if he had? Why, exactly, does Christopher Cox get the blame for regulating companies the way Phil Gramm and yourself wanted them regulated ten years ago: laxly?
Second, to his credit, I don't think the current President of the United States in on board with this idea:
Asked to respond to McCain’s criticism of Cox, White House spokesperson Dana Perino told NBC News, “The chairman has the president's confidence.”
Third. Guess what. You can't fire him anyway! At least, technically (from ABC):
But the president does not have the power to fire the SEC chairman.
Commissioners of the following independent regulatory commissions cannot be removed by the president: the SEC, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Of course, that's no obstacle. Especially to a Republican:
The McCain campaign called protests that the president cannot literally "fire" an SEC commissioner "a foolish distinction."
"Not only is there historical precedent for SEC chairs to be removed," said McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds, "the president of the United States always reserves the right to request the resignation of an appointee and maintain the customary expectation that it will be delivered.”
So, can a president "fire" an SEC chairman? Not literally, no.
But colloquially, yes.
Lastly, are you sure that this is the best course of action to take at the moment? Sure it's full of 'leadership' and testosterone but I kind of agree with Jim Geraghty over at NRO (a rare occurrence):
I have a quibble, and it's similar to my objection to the "George Tenet should have been fired on September 12, 2001!" argument. Even if you can legitimately lay the blame at the feet of the official in question (easier for Cox than Tenet, I would argue) you're effectively promoting that person's lieutenant. This presumes the President doesn't have some perfect SEC Chairman/crisis manager in mind, and even then you've got to get that person through the confirmation process with showboating, table-pounding, preening Senators. You also are ensuring that everyone in the organization in question is focused on covering their butts instead of fixing the problem at hand.
On September 12, I wanted CIA employees focused on tracking down al-Qaeda, and devoting exactly 0 percent of their time to worrying about whether they would be fired or purged.
Very good point.
This demonstrates leadership in the sense that you made a snap decision that the head of the SEC should be fired. He isn't really responsible. The deregulation of the past decade and the greed of the coporate overseers, whether they be CEO's or board members, is responsible.
This isn't a "let's solve it" leadership decision. This is a "let's find the most convenient scapegoat" leadership decision. That's all you are doing. No problem solving to see here, move on, move on.
I hope you get just as much flack on this one as you are still getting for your José Zapatero gaffe. You deserve it.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave. Sphere: Related Content
