Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:48:35 AM
Bush Had Generated More Regulations At This Point In His Presidency Than Obama
By Tanya Somanader on Oct 26, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Republican lawmakers have been raking President Obama over the coals due to what they call a “tsunami [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html ]” of new government regulations. “Business owners are reluctant to create jobs today if they’re going to need to pay more tomorrow to comply with onerous new regulations [ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/09/GOP-Obama-regs-are-killing-jobs-548766/1 ],” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Obama’s “excessive regulations [ http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/03/politics/boehner-obama-jobs/index.html ] that unnecessarily increase costs” just “make it harder for our economy to create jobs,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).
As with most GOP talking points, the facts tell a different story. A Bloomberg analysis of regulations reveals that Obama has approved fewer regulations than President George W. Bush [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html ] “at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father.” Indeed, the record for the most expensive regulations still belongs to the GOP:
Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg. [...]
In the last 12 months through the end of September, the cost range of new regulations is estimated to be $8 billion to $9 billion, a decrease from 2010, according to non-partisan Government Accountability Office reports analyzed by Bloomberg…The record [cost of regulations] came in 1992 under George H.W. Bush when that total hit $20.9 billion in current dollars. In the last year of Ronald Reagan’s term it was $16 billion in today’s dollars.
We certainly don’t remember Republicans crying about the “excessive” Bush regulations.
More of Obama’s regulations may cost more than $100 million as compared to previous administrations. But many of them help prevent outcomes that would cost exponentially more. For instance, the Department of Interior’s new controls on deep-water oil drilling may cost the industry $180 million, but one oil spill like that caused by Deepwater Horizon could cost the industry $16.3 billion. Some of the administration’s rules, like those governing coal ash, will actually help create thousands of jobs [ http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/11/341117/study-coal-ash-rules-will-create-28000-jobs-while-saving-lives/ ].
The impact of these regulations on small businesses is incredibly minimal [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html ]. In fact, of the 10,361 mass layoffs last year, only 61 were attributed to regulations. When McClatchy asked small business owners why they have been hesitant to hire, “none of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html ].”
© 2011 Center for American Progress Action Fund (emphasis in original)
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/26/353942/bush-more-regulations-than-obama/ [with comments]
===
Reducing Red Tape Is Great, But It Will Not Solve Our Jobs Problem: View
By the Editors
Oct 26, 2011 6:00 PM CT
To hear some Republicans tell it, the U.S. is stuck in a morass of stubbornly high unemployment for one reason: an unprecedented and vastly burdensome increase in government regulation under President Barack Obama.
This sounds plausible -- what business owner hasn’t felt that government rules impose undue costs? But as a Bloomberg Government analysis showed on Oct. 25, it’s exaggerated. Obama’s White House has approved 4.7 percent fewer regulations than his predecessor at the same point in their administrations. Although the average annual costs of regulation for businesses have risen somewhat under Obama, they aren’t unusually high by historical standards.
But the more important point is this: Although some federal regulations should be scaled back, doing so won’t resolve our unemployment crisis. Pretending otherwise is counterproductive.
Excess regulation is clearly a problem. According to a Gallup poll [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/150287/Gov-Regulations-Top-Small-Business-Owners-Problem-List.aspx ] released Oct. 24, small-business owners say it’s the most important one they face. Tom Donohue, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says [ http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/11/news/economy/chamber_commerce/index.htm ] it costs the economy $1.7 trillion per year. Many Republicans take this as justification for a moratorium [ http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/181127-senate-gop-seeks-regulatory-time-out ] on regulation of all kinds.
Targeted Cuts
Although we applaud eliminating red tape -- and there is plenty to eliminate -- it must be done in a targeted and rigorous way. Obama has lately accomplished more in this regard than he’s given credit for. In January he called for streamlining regulations at more than two dozen federal agencies and departments, an effort he says will save about $10 billion over five years, and he later urged independent agencies to do the same. He has risked angering supporters by opposing or reducing regulations on everything from ozone to industrial boilers to startup companies trying to raise capital. He has discovered that popular support for regulation tends to erode in grim economic times.
More could still be done. The Regulatory Accountability Act [ http://judiciary.house.gov/news/09222011.html ], a bill that commands a rare measure of bipartisan support, offers a partial starting point. It has many flaws, but it offers ideas for how to subject new regulation to greater transparency and require better cost-benefit analysis. Likewise, there has been too little systematic study of regulations already on the books -- how useful they’ve been, at what cost to businesses and the economy -- and much more should be encouraged. Available evidence about the overall impact of regulation on jobs is too often fragmentary and contradictory.
A Demand Problem
Still, these measures are only likely to help in the long- term. The fact is that we’re recovering from a financial crisis and ensuing recession of unusual magnitude. The resulting lack of demand has made economic recovery, and hence job creation, exceptionally hard.
Look closer at that Gallup poll of small-business owners. Although 22 percent said regulation was their top problem, 27 percent said either consumer confidence or consumer demand. A further 10 percent faulted lack of credit. As U.S. Labor Department statistics show, companies have blamed regulation for dismissing workers in only 79 of 35,807 mass firings tracked since 2007 -- or 0.2 percent of the time. They are much more likely to blame demand or financial issues.
It’s important to bear this in mind as the two big regulatory initiatives of the Obama administration, the health- care plan and the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law, come down the pike. Both impose costs and produce benefits that should be debated. But evaluating them as “regulation” in the abstract is pointless. Some rules are wasteful and anachronistic. Others are essential to protect our competitiveness, safety and environment. They should be assessed transparently and on their own terms.
Simply cutting red tape, as great as that sounds, won’t cure all that ails our economy.
To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view@bloomberg.net.
©2011 BLOOMBERG L.P.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-26/reducing-red-tape-is-great-but-it-won-t-solve-jobs-problem-view.html
===
and further to the Gupta items in the post to which this is a reply:
*
Indicted Goldman exec was major Dem donor
Posted by Emily Schultheis 04:21 PM
October 26, 2011
Rajat Gupta, the former head of McKinsey & Co. and Goldman Sachs who pleaded not guilty today in his insider trading case, was a major Democratic donor, according to FEC data.
Gupta has given to various Democratic candidates and committees, totaling just over $100,000 since 1990.
He gave $2,500 to Obama during the '08 cycle and $10,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, plus donations to a handful of congressional candidates.
Gupta cut a $23,000 check to the DNC in 2004, plus two $10,000 donations to the DCCC in 2005 and 2006.
He also donated to Al Gore, Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton, among others.
© 2011 POLITICO LLC
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1011/Indicted_Goldman_exec_was_major_Dem_donor.html [no comments yet]
By Tanya Somanader on Oct 26, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Republican lawmakers have been raking President Obama over the coals due to what they call a “tsunami [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html ]” of new government regulations. “Business owners are reluctant to create jobs today if they’re going to need to pay more tomorrow to comply with onerous new regulations [ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/09/GOP-Obama-regs-are-killing-jobs-548766/1 ],” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Obama’s “excessive regulations [ http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/03/politics/boehner-obama-jobs/index.html ] that unnecessarily increase costs” just “make it harder for our economy to create jobs,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).
As with most GOP talking points, the facts tell a different story. A Bloomberg analysis of regulations reveals that Obama has approved fewer regulations than President George W. Bush [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html ] “at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father.” Indeed, the record for the most expensive regulations still belongs to the GOP:
Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg. [...]
In the last 12 months through the end of September, the cost range of new regulations is estimated to be $8 billion to $9 billion, a decrease from 2010, according to non-partisan Government Accountability Office reports analyzed by Bloomberg…The record [cost of regulations] came in 1992 under George H.W. Bush when that total hit $20.9 billion in current dollars. In the last year of Ronald Reagan’s term it was $16 billion in today’s dollars.
We certainly don’t remember Republicans crying about the “excessive” Bush regulations.
More of Obama’s regulations may cost more than $100 million as compared to previous administrations. But many of them help prevent outcomes that would cost exponentially more. For instance, the Department of Interior’s new controls on deep-water oil drilling may cost the industry $180 million, but one oil spill like that caused by Deepwater Horizon could cost the industry $16.3 billion. Some of the administration’s rules, like those governing coal ash, will actually help create thousands of jobs [ http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/11/341117/study-coal-ash-rules-will-create-28000-jobs-while-saving-lives/ ].
The impact of these regulations on small businesses is incredibly minimal [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html ]. In fact, of the 10,361 mass layoffs last year, only 61 were attributed to regulations. When McClatchy asked small business owners why they have been hesitant to hire, “none of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html ].”
© 2011 Center for American Progress Action Fund (emphasis in original)
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/26/353942/bush-more-regulations-than-obama/ [with comments]
===
Reducing Red Tape Is Great, But It Will Not Solve Our Jobs Problem: View
By the Editors
Oct 26, 2011 6:00 PM CT
To hear some Republicans tell it, the U.S. is stuck in a morass of stubbornly high unemployment for one reason: an unprecedented and vastly burdensome increase in government regulation under President Barack Obama.
This sounds plausible -- what business owner hasn’t felt that government rules impose undue costs? But as a Bloomberg Government analysis showed on Oct. 25, it’s exaggerated. Obama’s White House has approved 4.7 percent fewer regulations than his predecessor at the same point in their administrations. Although the average annual costs of regulation for businesses have risen somewhat under Obama, they aren’t unusually high by historical standards.
But the more important point is this: Although some federal regulations should be scaled back, doing so won’t resolve our unemployment crisis. Pretending otherwise is counterproductive.
Excess regulation is clearly a problem. According to a Gallup poll [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/150287/Gov-Regulations-Top-Small-Business-Owners-Problem-List.aspx ] released Oct. 24, small-business owners say it’s the most important one they face. Tom Donohue, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says [ http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/11/news/economy/chamber_commerce/index.htm ] it costs the economy $1.7 trillion per year. Many Republicans take this as justification for a moratorium [ http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/181127-senate-gop-seeks-regulatory-time-out ] on regulation of all kinds.
Targeted Cuts
Although we applaud eliminating red tape -- and there is plenty to eliminate -- it must be done in a targeted and rigorous way. Obama has lately accomplished more in this regard than he’s given credit for. In January he called for streamlining regulations at more than two dozen federal agencies and departments, an effort he says will save about $10 billion over five years, and he later urged independent agencies to do the same. He has risked angering supporters by opposing or reducing regulations on everything from ozone to industrial boilers to startup companies trying to raise capital. He has discovered that popular support for regulation tends to erode in grim economic times.
More could still be done. The Regulatory Accountability Act [ http://judiciary.house.gov/news/09222011.html ], a bill that commands a rare measure of bipartisan support, offers a partial starting point. It has many flaws, but it offers ideas for how to subject new regulation to greater transparency and require better cost-benefit analysis. Likewise, there has been too little systematic study of regulations already on the books -- how useful they’ve been, at what cost to businesses and the economy -- and much more should be encouraged. Available evidence about the overall impact of regulation on jobs is too often fragmentary and contradictory.
A Demand Problem
Still, these measures are only likely to help in the long- term. The fact is that we’re recovering from a financial crisis and ensuing recession of unusual magnitude. The resulting lack of demand has made economic recovery, and hence job creation, exceptionally hard.
Look closer at that Gallup poll of small-business owners. Although 22 percent said regulation was their top problem, 27 percent said either consumer confidence or consumer demand. A further 10 percent faulted lack of credit. As U.S. Labor Department statistics show, companies have blamed regulation for dismissing workers in only 79 of 35,807 mass firings tracked since 2007 -- or 0.2 percent of the time. They are much more likely to blame demand or financial issues.
It’s important to bear this in mind as the two big regulatory initiatives of the Obama administration, the health- care plan and the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law, come down the pike. Both impose costs and produce benefits that should be debated. But evaluating them as “regulation” in the abstract is pointless. Some rules are wasteful and anachronistic. Others are essential to protect our competitiveness, safety and environment. They should be assessed transparently and on their own terms.
Simply cutting red tape, as great as that sounds, won’t cure all that ails our economy.
To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view@bloomberg.net.
©2011 BLOOMBERG L.P.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-26/reducing-red-tape-is-great-but-it-won-t-solve-jobs-problem-view.html
===
and further to the Gupta items in the post to which this is a reply:
*
Indicted Goldman exec was major Dem donor
Posted by Emily Schultheis 04:21 PM
October 26, 2011
Rajat Gupta, the former head of McKinsey & Co. and Goldman Sachs who pleaded not guilty today in his insider trading case, was a major Democratic donor, according to FEC data.
Gupta has given to various Democratic candidates and committees, totaling just over $100,000 since 1990.
He gave $2,500 to Obama during the '08 cycle and $10,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, plus donations to a handful of congressional candidates.
Gupta cut a $23,000 check to the DNC in 2004, plus two $10,000 donations to the DCCC in 2005 and 2006.
He also donated to Al Gore, Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton, among others.
© 2011 POLITICO LLC
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1011/Indicted_Goldman_exec_was_major_Dem_donor.html [no comments yet]
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
