Less regulation, more competitiveness.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH has put the word "competitiveness" on the national agenda. So what are our readers saying about how the U.S. government regulates them, and what impact that has on their competitiveness? Specifically, is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in 2002 in the aftermath of scandal, making chief executive officers of publicly traded companies fundamentally more honest?

No. Some 80 percent of our readers who responded to our CEO Confidence Index email polling said their ethics always have been at a high level or have stayed the same. Fewer than 18 percent say the new regulations have had any positive impact (see page 16).

At the same time, however, almost 70 percent of respondents said they're spending more time and money on compliance. And nearly two-thirds say all this has hurt their competitiveness.

We've been beating this drum for a while, but here is fresh information that there is a fundamental disconnect between the government's goal of increasing U.S. competitiveness and how it actually imposes regulatory burdens on business, particularly smaller and medium-sized companies.

The Free Enterprise Fund has filed a law suit against the constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which Sarbox created, alleging that it is unaccountable and unconstitutional. We hope the fund prevails. And if Bush is serious about competitiveness, his administration should also be pushing for regulatory relief. Our new survey data should help make the case. CEOs of America, unite!