Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Monday, December 18, 2006
Carrie Lukas :: Townhall.com Columnist
Self Discipline, Not Regulation, Needed for Ethical Business
by Carrie Lukas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


Even as the new Congress prepares to convene in just a few short weeks, it’s still unclear exactly what voters can expect in terms of big domestic policy changes. Tax policy, Social Security reform, healthcare policy, the environment—all these issues loom before the new Congress, but Democrats have not yet indicated exactly where they will take the country while in the new majority.

One priority is clear: Paving the way for more ethical government must top the agenda for both parties in the upcoming Congressional session. Democrats need to deliver on their most clearly articulated campaign promise and Republicans have to regain the trust of voters. This may mean Congress will create new laws to limit interaction between policymakers and lobbyists or eliminate earmark appropriations, which invite corruption.

While Congress attempts to clean its house, corporate America would be wise to do the same. Five years ago, the American economy was rocked by some of the biggest corporate scandals in history. Enron and Worldcom collapsed under the weight of massive fraud and corruption, ruining investors and employee pensions while shocking the public.

There were plenty of existing laws broken by Enron and Worldcom senior officials and some employees. But Congress wasn’t satisfied to let the judicial process work and watch the perpetrators get sentenced to prison. Instead, at least in part to demonstrate their disgust for this corruption, Congress created a thicket of new regulations through a law commonly referred to as Sarbanes-Oxley.

Sarbanes-Oxley increased penalties for corporate malfeasance, instituted new requirements for companies’ disclosure of their internal audit systems, and made executives personally and criminally liable for their public financial reports. Not surprisingly, these new requirements entail significant costs for businesses. Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley has cost companies an estimated $35 billion, a burden that is particularly onerous for small businesses.

Analysts worry that these regulations have made America a less attractive climate for business. These regulations, their costs, and the significant liabilities facing executives and board members may discourage small businesses or foreign entities from listing their companies on an American stock exchange.

America’s business climate already has some significant drawbacks that make companies increasingly interested in locating elsewhere. Our complex tax code includes one of the highest business tax rates in the world. Companies face the specter of high legal costs from our litigation-happy society. Regulations that require businesses to provide expensive benefits and high payroll taxes make hiring American workers costly. Policymakers who complained about a lack of “good” jobs may want to consider if there was any drag from Sarbannes-Oxley and seek ways to make the United States more attractive for businesses.

Sarbanes-Oxley’s intent was in part to do just that by reassuring investors about the security of investing in American companies. Transparency and reliable financial records certainly are critical to ensuring that investors have the information they need to evaluate companies and can comfortably invest their money. Yet policymakers need to carefully weigh if the new regulations’ benefits outweigh their costs—and with portions of Sarbanes-Oxley, it seems clear that the costs outstrip the benefits.

No set of regulations, of course, is going to prevent some businesses from behaving badly In spite of these myriad regulations and requirements, corporate scandals continue to make headlines. Hewlett Packard’s chairman, Patricia C. Dunn, had to resign after revelations of the company spying on their employees and board members. Reports recently surfaced about UnitedHealth Group’s slipshod method of issuing executives stock options and a board replete with conflicts of interest. In October, Oracle agreed to pay a $98.5 million fine for charging the U.S. government inflated prices for software and service for eight years—reminding the public that taxpayers often are among the victims of corporate scandals.

None of these recent scandals has sufficiently impressed the public’s consciousness to prompt meaningful Congressional action. The Dow’s record highs and the economy’s steady growth quell the impulse for Congress to push new reforms. Yet that could change at any moment.

Businesses can help themselves by examining their own practices to ensure that they meet high ethical standards. If they don’t and Congress moves toward to new regulations, it could be our economy that pays the price.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

Be the first to read Carrie Lukas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: Two Cents
It's incredible how easily we justify greed and applaud theft in our selfish little worlds. It is equally amazing that there are people who truly believe in myths (Affluence is produced by "hard work.") and fairy tales (America is the greatest country that ever was.) Why not? We have been subjected to this limited world view our whole lives.

All thoughtful criticism of the status quo is resented by the affluent and ridiculed by its "intellectuals" not on the merits of the criticism, but on some esoteric collective belief that there is this "real world" where their economic rules are universal and that its primacy is due to the historical proof of its Darwinian "survival." This could be possible if capitalism is truly the penultimate economic theory. However, those who argue in favor of this conclusion will inevitably "cherrypick" history and proclaim superiority based upon the great benefits that this system has produced for the world through the "invisible hand" of competition and efficiency.

I have no doubt that these thoughts will be criticized and I will be labelled as an idealist, at best, a socialist or, at worst, a crackpot. Fine, I have been called worse and in all honesty, it's kind of flattering in a sardonic kind of way. If the last six years don't tell you that something is terribly wrong with our country then you are either delusional, a christianist or a republican; quite possibly all three.

There, now you can "project" and claim that I am not only a crackpot, but a meanie name caller too. Oh yeah, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again."


The Consumer, not the corporation
The Consumer, not the corporation is the problem.

And the first amendment didn't apply to state powers, only the Federal government as we know from the study of history but, now is now and it what the federal government enacts, does apply.

Something else that does apply is that no matter how you view U.S. corporations doesn't matter. They can't compete with low tax, low healthcare, low wage, low payroll tax, low property tax, low litigation cost, etc. nations. Why can't they compete?

Simple. The U.S. consumer is not going to be loyal to the U.S. business that has to include those things in their prices and all costs, all taxes, all compliance costs are included. That is why union states are losing the auto manufacturing jobs to right to work states. Consumers are not going to pay workers in GM high wages when they can buy an equivalent or better car. Toyota's cost of labor is about $31 an hour and GM's about $80. Thus, even with higher profits, more spent on research and development, more spent on marketing, more spent on warranty work (if that is the case) they can charge the same or less. They have passed Chrysler and Ford and soon will pass GM as the number one car manufacturer in America.

We had auto workers for the Big Three buying foreign cars. If you can't even get workers to be loyal to their own company because of prices, how do you get regular consumers to be loyal.

But, in China, GM is competing and making large profits on a faction of the cars. The last time here they had a profit, it was $811 million at $145 profit per North American Vehicle. In China it was $836 million at $2,200 per vehicle and over 10% sales growth selling to the middle and upper class of China that is now almost as large as the entire U.S. population by some estmates and as low as our current middle class population by other estimates. But, they will have 590 million middle class in a decade or even less by some estimates.

The American Consumer is not going to pay the cost of manufacturing in America. If you try protectionism, you will get thrown out of office as soon as the "Walmart everyday low price" goes up because of those policies. The North American Union and superhighway are all about getting more Chinese and Asian goods in the hads of consumers not, bringing business back here.

It doesn't matter if it is fair or not, consumers decide where they buy from and all taxes are included in the prices in every nation. Thus, consumers who say tax business and wealthy investors just drive them to China because those extra taxs AND the compliance costs are passed on in the price.

That is why socialism doesn't work. It gives the workers what they want, control and taxes off them and on business and wealthy but then the workers won't buy what is made here then because it costs too much. We gave away our economic power 70 years ago but it took sevearl decades before it started to snowball. Every decade from the 50's on, we lost manufacturing as a percent of GDP. Down from 30.4% in the 1950's to a current 13-14% now. Every decade.

And you could have "job growth" during that time but, it wasn't growing as fast as other segments of the economy or GDP so you can't use "jobs" in manufacturing as a bellweather unless you compare them to the rate of growth in the nation which added 100 million people in that time frame.

Ireland competes. Almost all computers sold in Europe are made in Ireland. It is where we get a lot of our drugs like Zocor from because we drove the companies out of the U.S. or at least some of their operations to nations where, like Ireland (that has a higher ave. mfg wage), has a tax on business income 30 pts lower than our fed and ave. manufacturing state rate.

So, you can compete but, you have to do it like Ireland because otherwise, the consumers and investors will leave you at the altar.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone: