NEWS RELEASE
July 27, 2005
CONTACT: Doug Heller (310) 392-0522 ext. 309, or Carmen Balber ext. 324
FTCR Releases Documents Indicating Cox Involvement in Investor Scam
Santa Monica, CA — The nonpartisan Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) called on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee to recall Representative Chris Cox for further questioning after uncovering evidence which suggests omissions and potential perjury in Cox’s testimony yesterday as President Bush’s nominee to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). During his testimony, Cox omitted important facts about the extent of his involvement with a web of companies that perpetrated a $130 million fraud on small investors, and he falsely stated that there was no settlement of the case related to the fraud in which he was a named defendant, according to a letter sent by FTCR today.
In its letter to Senators, FTCR writes:
“There are documents that exist that contradict Cox’s testimony before your committee. The attorneys who presented these documents were under the strictest obligations to provide truthful information. There was an eventual settlement of the case against Representative Cox and we have no reason to believe that the documents referenced [in the letter] above do not exist.
“It is your obligation to find and review these documents and recall Representative Cox to your Committee in order to fully understand the depth of his involvement in this scandal and the possibility that he perjured himself before your committee in yesterday’s testimony.”
Click here to read FTCR’s letter to Committee Chair Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes.
Click here to read the Fourth Amended Complaint in the key case: Murray v. Belka.
Source
These guys spend so much time lieing that it is not second nature for them to lie, but first nature.
I really hate that this guy was the nominee. The honesty factor is big for investors and workers, but the opposite is true on Wall Street. And while I feel that there are a few Congressmen out there who really do care, for the most part my impression is this:
Let the scandals subside, continue on with the dirtiness.
They’re all about today – making money today, which is their nature, but the government has to force them to address tomorrow as well – and this guy isn’t someone who’s going to do that.
What I don’t get about these guys is the way they fight accounting reforms, they almost insure that future frauds will occur. At the same time they are trying to get everyone to invest their retirement funds in the stock market, it seems like they want to return to 1929.
DO you guys ever get tired of saying the same thing… it seems like they want to return to 1929. Boo hoo
I can’t manage my own money so no one else should either….waaaahhhh
Here’s an idea, if you are scared of handling your money, don’t volunteer for personal accounts. Keep your 3%, I’ll gladly take the 9%, and if you want to learn how to handle your money, listen to dave ramsey.
Here’s an idea, if you are scared of handling your money, don’t volunteer for personal accounts.
BINGO!!!!!!!
‘SOCIAL’ Security…meaning, it is owned by everyone. A program created during a stretch of Democratic leadership that accomplished more than any Republican would like to admit. Against much tougher odds than anything Bush Sr, Jr or Reagan had to face – we came out on top. Prescott Bush and his group HATED the very idea of Social Security, and this is the sentiment that creates the idea of personal accounts.
It’s the idea of your money ending up in someone else’s pocket.
With taxation in mind…it would seem more genuine to me, this whole idea, if any of these Republican presidents coupled tax breaks with a reduction in spending. Bush has failed miserably on this front.
If you cut taxes and increase spending…it doesn’t work.
It’s the idea of your money ending up in someone else’s pocket.
This is the whole premise of Social Security.
A program created during a stretch of Democratic leadership that accomplished more than any Republican would like to admit.
Does anyone know significance of the age in which you are able to begin receiving Social Security benefits?
Democrats, the taxation guru’s that they are, determined what the life expectancy of an American was through the actuary tables of insurance companies and then set the retirement age at that level.
Very few people were supposed to live long enough to receive Social Security!!!!! It was designed as a tax windfall to finance the Federalization of America and reduce States’ rights, remember liberal’s big government concept? The problem with Social Security is people are getting it and Democrats didn’t expect that to ever happen.
You are right about my money going into other people’s pockets, the government’s pockets. Private accounts delivers the death knell to this abusive, destructive and fraudulent system.
DI: ‘SOCIAL’ Security…meaning, it is owned by everyone.
Why don’t we stop beating around the bush, its welfare. It doesn’t provide security to anyone, only people who have investments outside of social security, will live decently throughout their ‘golden’ years.
DI: Prescott Bush and his group HATED the very idea of Social Security, and this is the sentiment that creates the idea of personal accounts.
Good for him, i think its heading down the crapper myself…unless something changes, and i would prefer it being something other than ‘taxing’ the rich, because economist agree that you can’t tax the rich and not have it hurt the poor, via lower wages/fewer jobs. We need to expand the investor class, start teaching financial management in schools, and make our nation more financially savy starting with the least experienced. What do you say? Maybe then people won’t be scared of handling their own money.
DI: If you cut taxes and increase spending…it doesn’t work.
Historically speaking, economic growth is strongest when national debt is highest. Doesn’t excuse it, but makes it seem less of a big deal. BTW, Bush’s tax cuts are showing the effect they have on revenue…and the “Tax, Tax, Tax” shout of the Dems is falling by the wayside.
That’s the beauty of the program. We all help each other out. One nation, under God, indivisible…
It was created because of the depression, not for any of the conspiracy theories you refer to regarding Democrats. ‘Abuse, destructive and fradulent system’…completely wrong.
Should we just kill education and the highway funding as well? I mean, your money goes to other people’s benefit. How about police and firefighters? Should we just pay a bill whenever we need their help instead of funding them with our taxes?
How can you say it doesn’t provide security to anyone? I’m quite sure there are millions of retirees today who would disagree with you. With the private sector defaulting on their pensions, we need social security now more than ever!
Prescott Bush had that opinion…as a robber barron, during the depression. Good for him? Some perspective is needed here.
National debt is not a ‘good’ thing Michael. If a GOP think-tank has convinced you otherwise…well, how about giving a detailed explaination of how this idea is valid?
It was created because of the depression, not for any of the conspiracy theories you refer to regarding Democrats. ‘Abuse, destructive and fradulent system’…completely wrong.
My very first finance class in college was about the history of the stock market and social spending programs. When they were first introducing Social Security the 62 was life expectancy of Americans and that is what the payout age is based on.
Insurance actuary tables were used to determine this age because that was where life statistics were, and are, kept. The retirement age was raised a few times and now the maximum age is 95.
This is history, I’ll look for some references for you but this is how it happened. Do you think a Democrat would really GIVE money to people during the Great Depression? It’s all about the take, my friend, tax and spend.
Right – life expenctancy aside – the program was started because there were too many elderly people without homes or any way to feed themselves. Social Security benefits are used often to put someone up in a home.
It’s the same thing that led to the legalization of abortion…just like people would get to the age where they could no longer work without a dime in their pocket…people would go out and get backalley abortions and die from them. It’s about prevention, and both came about for reasons the right-wing conveniently forgets now.
DI:It’s the same thing that led to the legalization of abortion…just like people would get to the age where they could no longer work without a dime in their pocket…people would go out and get backalley abortions and die from them. It’s about prevention, and both came about for reasons the right-wing conveniently forgets now.
Oh so now your are comparing the legitamate inactment of law by the legislative branch, to the single most devisive case of judicial activism we have ever experienced. If abortion is so supported, then why not allow it to be voted on? I mean, isn’t this a democracy? We shouldn’t have to blame the mistakes of the past on 9 justices, we should blame it on the reprsentatives of an entire generation, that makes Social Security at least legitamate, abortion…i’ll let you live in the delusion that its some grand right. The real right, should be the right to contraceptives, condoms, and abstinence. Because the number of back ally abortion deaths pales in comparison to the number of STD’s being passed around now, because women were free from the ‘bondage’ of pregnancy. And men were free from the fear of inpregnating women, so welcome to our world AIDS.
I agree 100% with your statement that the real right should be to contraceptives – but you also add the word abstinance. Every American who is not raped already has a right to abstinance. It’s the pro-life lobby who wants to deny access to contraceptives.
As a man, I consider myself out of the argument in terms of whether a woman should or shouldn’t have an abortion. Until I wanted to have children, I used birth control when having sex. If condoms were not available to me, or I had been indoctrinated to believe that using them was evil – my life might be extremely different today, and not in a good way.
The comparison of Social Security and abortion is apt because there was a crisis of inequality that needed to be rectified. The rich could safely have an abortion, the poor could die from one. The rich could retire with a roof over their heads, the poor would die homeless. In both cases the government took steps to ensure rich and poor alike had the right to grow old and have an abortion.
The Supreme Court is blamed for this, but they were presented with an enormous amount of evidence. When I was a born-again Christian, I was presented with scriptures and propaganda. When I read about ‘why’ the decision was made, I was pro-life. I’m still pro-life in the sense that an abortion that has to happen due to irresponsibility is a tragedy. But not all abortions take place under those circumstances.
DI: I’m still pro-life in the sense that an abortion that has to happen due to irresponsibility is a tragedy. But not all abortions take place under those circumstances.
Why not get behind restrictions that reduce tragadies, and promote adoption as an alternative. Abortions under any circumstance other than health of mother issues, are unneccessary. Having watched my cousin, become pregnant as a teenager, two close friends have baby’s with their girlfriends before leaving High School, I know first hand how hard it is for young couples to raise kids they didn’t expect, but each time I’ve seen them care soo much for that child that now even their timid thoughts of giving them up for adoption seem unrealistic, they can’t live without them. Sadly, my cousin lost her child, through miscarriage, she cried for days. Her boyfriend, who also never expected to have a baby at his age, cried right along with her. A child however developed is precious, and we have a moral obligation to protect them.