Keep those regulations rolling, Pelosi says they create jobs. For America's businesses, the Obama administration has an unpleasant holiday surprise. A new report on the government's regulatory actions was released just before Thanksgiving, and it contains more than 3,300 rules -- which the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) estimates will cost more than $1.8 trillion to implement on an annual basis. At a time when the economy is still struggling to zoom out of its post-recession rut, businesses worry that the crush of regulation is another sandbag weighing down the recovery. "Back in the '90s, the federal budget itself was not even $1.8 trillion," said Wayne Crews, vice president of policy for CEI. "Now we have this entire $1.8 trillion hidden tax, you could say, of government compliance and intervention cost imposed in the economy." The latest monthly jobs report from the Labor Department showed gains in hiring in November, which helped push the unemployment rate down to 7 percent, a five-year low. But many of the new jobs added in the last several months were low wage, and more growth is needed for the economy to truly rebound. Crews reviewed the latest regulation round-up, a twice-annual compilation called the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Because the majority of the regulatory costs will be borne by private industry, Crews said that will ultimately mean higher costs for consumers. According to CEI, the biggest cost tucked into this year's agenda comes from environmental regulations, adding up to roughly $379 billion. But Jeremy Symons, senior director of climate policy for the Environmental Defense Fund, said those regulations are necessary to ensure clean air and water for future generations. "There is a balancing of the costs and benefits to find the best approach forward," Symons said. He also noted that all federal regulations undergo a vetting process including input from the public and the industries that will be impacted. There have been several bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to get a better handle on the growing number of regulations and to press for more transparency from the agencies issuing them. According to CEI, 127 federal laws were passed last year, but more than 3,700 regulations were issued. It's a trend that troubles even the president's own supporters. George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee this week, warned of what he called "the continued rise of this fourth branch." Unlike lawmakers, the people issuing the regulations -- which often impose hefty fines and/or jail time for defying them -- never have to face voters. Courts are often the chosen remedy, and there are two significant cases challenging the EPA's power currently pending at the Supreme Court.
heh, regulations DO create <s>jobs</s> bureaucracies. and they're like, the same thing. to pelosi anyway.
Earlier this year I read where several entities had attempted to count the number of federal regulations. None actually succeeded. One "expert" associated with one of the firms estimated that EVERYONE in this country over age 16 has violated at least one federal regulation. Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. Albert Einstein Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed. Benjamin Franklin It is difficult to make our material condition better by the best law, but it is easy enough to ruin it by bad laws. Theodore Roosevelt The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced. Frank Zappa Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them. Voltaire The more laws, the less justice. Marcus Tullius Cicero The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. Tacitus A state is better governed which has few laws, and those laws strictly observed. Rene Descartes
By: Noel Sheppard | December 8, 2013, 11:42 ET Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made some rather ominous economic observations Sunday. Appearing on CNNâs Fareed Zakaria GPS, Greenspan said, âThe level of uncertainty about the very long-term future is far greater than at any time I particularly remember.â He blamed it on âgovernment intervention [that] has been so horrendous that businesses cannot basically decide what to do about the futureâ... Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2mv5QfXCt
Right-wing garbage debunked: No, regulation doesnât kill jobs The right loves to warn that regulations will harm "job creators." A new report explains why that's nonsense By Sean McElwee Monday, Dec 2, 2013 05:43 AM MST "Itâs one of the oldest right-wing claims: âExcessiveâ regulation will harm job creators and kill the economy. But is it based on sound economics? "One new study, which examines this particular argument, finds it absurd on its face. Taylor Lincoln, who authored the report for Public Citizen, tells Salon the goal was to âpoint out hypocrisy and contradictions and the chasms between rhetoric and reality.â To that end, the report cites one Heritage Foundation study which asserted that a more efficient regulatory system could create 9.6 million jobs. The problem, as Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein noted: âthere are only 7 million unemployed Americans.â "Heritage isnât the only one making this argument. A Phoenix Foundation study claimed that, âa 5 percent reduction in the federal regulatory budget would yield 5.9 million new jobs over five years.â But the Public Citizen report points out that this leads to a ludicrous conclusion: 'âa 16 percent decrease (a figure the authors chose to parallel the amount by which they say federal spending had exceeded revenue since 2000) would result in the creation of 18.8 million new jobs over five years. In contrast, there are only about 11.3 million unemployed Americans.â' "Dr. Thomas McGarity, a University of Texas professor who has studied regulation for decades, finds the right-wing argument wanting. As to whether cutting regulation could increase economic growth, he tells Salon, âitâs a silly argument. The impact of regulation, particularly in this era when itâs so darn hard to write a regulation, is nothing compared to what the Fed does each meeting.â His most recent book, Freedom to Harm, details how a decade-long assault on regulation threatens workers and the environment. "In fact, the OMB estimates that regulations provide huge economic benefits. They find that major regulations benefit the economy between $193 billion and $800 billion a year at a cost of $57 to $84 billion. McGarity confirms this, telling Salon, âThe thing that is most troubling to me is..." More>>
It is easy to point to particular regulations and the exact jobs they eliminated at employers. There are many businesses that have provided clear examples of the impact of regulations and then demonstrated how they eliminated employees or stopped hiring to comply with the regulations. One of the most recent examples is the direct impact of Obamacare (which is not even in the 'regulatory' bucket') . All of our local universities are laying off the adjunct professors who teach more than 30 hours per week. They are required to either scale back their number of classes or stop working completely. This has impacted many of our two and four year universities who heavily depend on adjunct staff to teach. ... and this is just one example of employment impact by federal/state regulations, programs, and laws. I will admit that it is harder to make the case that simply reducing the money spent on regulation will create jobs. Some regulation is in place for a reason (e.g. meat inspection). It would be better to target individual regulations and perform a cost/benefits analysis including their impact on jobs - rather than slashing regulations wholesale from a budget perspective without understanding the real picture.
Well said. But it's also well known amongst entrepreneurs that new regs create new business opportunities. But, you're talking sense. By the way, most new regs these past few years are in food and pharmaceuticals safety.
I read the study Salon linked to. Where the hell are they getting the ridiculous numbers regarding the number of jobs and Americans who are unemployed?? They make no sense whatsoever!