Waxman nostalgic for free-market capitalism and the rule of law

Early in the regime of Barack Hussein Obama those attentive to current events were witness to event’s that “transformed” two of the pillars of our economic system — the rule of law and sanctity of contract — to something more resembling a Banana Republic. That event was the bailout of the United Auto Workers, financed in part by the taxpayers (disturbing enough in and of itself), but also by a politically strong-armed bankruptcy “haircut” of the secured bondholders in favor of the unsecured UAW. (This writer does not know if a “haircut” of the stockholders also occurred – there may not have been sufficient assets — though if it did not occur it seems indisputable that the Obama administration would have done so without compunction should such assets have been available.)

More recently we’ve witnessed Congressman Henry Waxman initiate a star chamber proceeding against companies demonstrating the impudence of complying with SEC requirements and reporting the negative financial impact of Obamacare. In other words, giving companies the Hobson’s Choice of either complying with black-letter statutory law, or aiding and abetting the propaganda line of the current regime, one whose own numbers were deliberately engineered to mislead the public via rejiggering legislation to procure what most recognize as being fictional numbers, albeit fiction engineered to be blessed by the CBO.

Anyone who invests is aware of Form 10K, required by the SEC, which is the “true” annual report for companies, i.e, sans the glossy marketing of the non-SEC annual report. Within a 10K is a section dealing with “risk factors” that is intended to alert potential investors to factors which could materially and adversely affect their investment. Here’s a sample from a randomly selected 10K (this is only a partial excerpt):

There are a number of business risks and uncertainties that have affected and may continue to affect our business. These risks and uncertainties have negatively impacted our current results and could cause our future results to differ from past performance or expected results, including results described in statements elsewhere in this Report that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The effect on us of certain of these risk factors is discussed below under Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, or that we currently believe to be immaterial, also may adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following, which we consider to be most relevant to our specific business activities …

“… Our international business faces risks associated with changes in political, monetary, economic and social environments, labor conditions and practices, the laws, regulations and policies of foreign governments, cultural differences and differences in enforcement of contract and intellectual property rights. U.S. laws affecting activities of U.S. companies doing business abroad, including tax laws and laws regulating various business practices, also impact our international business.

Now given the very real political risk factor of the current administration strong-arming creditors and investors to sacrifice some or all of their investment to a politically favored labor union, should it not now be the expectation that publicly traded companies (who have a union on the premises) to disclose and discuss this political-union risk?

And if they don’t do so, and the Obama administration pulls “another UAW” at their company, would not the creditors/investors perhaps entitled to sue management (perhaps on a class-action basis) for failure to disclose / discuss this new political-union risk?

Conversely, if they do so disclose, will they then be subjected to another Henry Waxman Star chamber for their impudence and telling the truth?

In any case, faced with this dilemma, is this not all yet another incentive that the Obama administration is giving companies to invest almost anywhere but in the United States of America?

Finally, assuming that Barack Hussein Obama and his economic and political advisers are not entirely ignorant regarding “Econ 101,” then do the sum of their economic actions betray a deliberate intent to remove America as the world’s leading economic power and most prosperous nation?