Boehner to Obama: Come clean on cost of new regulations
The only question I have about this is: What took so long?
From a letter Speaker John Boehner sent today to President Obama:
This year the Administration’s current regulatory agenda identifies 219 planned new regulations that have estimated annual costs in excess of $100 million each. That’s almost a 15 percent increase over last year [when there were 191 such regulations], and appears to contradict public suggestions by the Administration this week that the regulatory burden on American job creators is being scaled back. …
I was startled to learn that the EPA estimates that at least one of its proposed rules will cost our economy as much as $90 billion per year. The Administration has not disclosed how many of the other 218 planned rules will cost more than $1 billion, nor identified these rules. This information is of great relevance to the American people, who face so much uncertainty about these new regulatory costs, and to the Congress, where we continue to aim to work with you in relieving unnecessary burdens and helping employers move forward to create jobs.
I am again asking that your Administration provide a list of all pending and planned rulemakings with a projected impact on our economy in excess of $1 billion.
A reporting threshold of only $100 million is far too low. If we only know that each of the 219 new rules would cost at least that amount, we can only say that the aggregate cost is at least $21.9 billion. That’s bad enough — but as Boehner’s letter notes, one of the 219 on its own is projected to cost at least $90 billion. So, the total cost is really at least $111.8 billion, and probably much, much more.
The public ought to know exactly how much more.
Obama can propose all the new stimulus he wants, but any effects will be severely dampened by the $111.8 billion-plus his agencies are taking back out of the economy at the same time. And not even hard-core Keynesians claim there’s a multiplier effect for regulatory costs. This is the bureaucratic version of Bastiat’s broken window fallacy.
A better, no-cost stimulus would be, as I pointed out last week, to put a freeze on these costly new rules.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
209 comments Add your comment
GT
August 26th, 2011
2:25 pm
For eight years we gave the Republican Party about everything they wanted, had too. Now they are the minority and they are seeing fit to clean up all the things they refused to do as a majority with a sitting president. They try to act like this is a new bunch, the Tea Party, but last I looked the two were in the same party. I am tempted to play their game, let them have everything they want, and when the world is ended by their actions tell em it was their fault, my last breath. Nope that would be too much like them.
Darwin
August 26th, 2011
2:28 pm
Let’s eliminate all regulations. No more FDA. If you eat or take a pill and get sick and die, well, that’s the price you pay for economic freedom. Let’s roll the clock back to the glory years of the 18th and 19th centuries, and even the early 20th century. No more laws. Every man, woman, and child for themselves. I might need to take a pill, as the right wing rhetoric continues to kill me. Taxes and regulations are what’s keeping us from having total employment and a full steam ahead economcy. It’s so simple. Why didn’t I think of that?
A new party
August 26th, 2011
2:32 pm
Interesting that Boehner will cite the upper end of the cost at $90 billion but won’t cite any savings, much less the projected upper end of savings at $100 billion. This cost as well as the resulting savings is for the smog rule, which Atlantans should know plenty about. The savings would be made up from the health care aspect (which could be overstated but if you cite the study for the cost, you should for the savings too). Healthier people, more living people, and fewer people jacking up my premiums – people that can work and spend money (or pay taxes, or draw welfare depending on your outlook).
Junior Samples
August 26th, 2011
2:34 pm
Regulations exist simply because businesses have no incentive to do the right thing, falling back on caveat emptor.
And yes, corporations are moving jobs overseas so they can exploit others without consequence.
If we remove the regulations, corporations will pocket the money and not hire anyone within our borders. Have any corporations been on record to say that if regulations were lifted, they would hire x number of people? No. They haven’t. And they won’t.
Yes, regulations hit a company’s bottom line, but it doesn’t impact supply or demand. That is the only reason companies hire more people, to produce more widgets.
Regarding the EPA, it’s the only thing President Nixon got right. In 1969 the Cuyahoga river actually caught fire. But I’m sure that the companies resonsible for that would stop what they were doing on their accord, right?
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
2:36 pm
“Boehner, WHERE ARE THE JOBS YOU PROMISED??? The Repubs ran on the platform in 2010 of creating jobs.”
Yes, they did. But they are only 8 months into having control over 1/2 of 1/3rd of the Federal lawmaking apparatus. They first had to create and pas a budget – for THIS year. They then had to deal with the debt ceiling, which would have taken far less time if certain people in Washington, D.C. would accept the reality that they no longer control the whole process anymore. Finally, they have to come up with a budget for NEXT year. All the while, they have a Senate that will filibuster any regulatory reform (or take the brave move and table it like they did deficit reductions), and a President that will veto it.
“They attack the deficit, spending cuts for poor and middle class and don’t tax the rich.”
The deficit is a problem, unless you don’t understand the issue. And the rich are taxed plenty, so saying they don’t tax the rich is, well, wrong.
‘Keep giving Corporations tax incentives to send jobs oversees.”
Current incentive should be eliminated, but there are very few, if any, that encourage corporations to send jobs overseas. Perhaps you know of a few specifics?
“The GOP has but one objective and that is to make President Obama a one term president (their words).”
Technically, those are the words of Mitch McConnell and Michele Bachmann. I do not believe that it has been the platform of the GOP, however. And even if it was, shouldn’t that be ONE of the goals of the opposition party?
“Speaking for me! I like to breath clean air, drink and swim in clean water. Have safe food to eat and safe transportation.”
As do all of us. Many of us just have a different way of getting there with less tax dollars.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
2:41 pm
A little less hyperbole, a little more understanding of a business model, and a whole lot more facts might go a long way in the responses of GT, Junior Samples, and Darwin.
GT
August 26th, 2011
2:41 pm
A new party, it is almost humorous we have to point everything out in dollars and cents to our one trick pony opponents. The mere fact that some of us may live longer healthier lives should be enough motivation but obviously not for all of us.
You know if we didn’t have a government, cost or otherwise, we would go back to the tribual days and be constantly fighting upon ourselves. The ones of us that don’t think they need the government may be the ones that need it the most.
That Black guy
August 26th, 2011
2:45 pm
Ask the people if there are some regulations we could do without.
California’s Man-Made Drought
The green war against San Joaquin Valley farmers.
California has a new endangered species on its hands in the San Joaquin Valley—farmers. Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America’s premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations….
The result has already been devastating for the state’s farm economy. In the inland areas affected by the court-ordered water restrictions, the jobless rate has hit 14.3%, with some farming towns like Mendota seeing unemployment numbers near 40%. Statewide, the rate reached 11.6% in July, higher than it has been in 30 years. In August, 50 mayors from the San Joaquin Valley signed a letter asking President Obama to observe the impact of the draconian water rules firsthand.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
2:46 pm
GT, NO ONE thinks that we don’t need any government.
NO ONE.
Less hyperbole, more substance to your arguments, please.
For instance, what’s your threshold for the number of lives saved vs. the cost to implement a law? One? A dozen? Hundreds? Thousands? Life is NOT without risk, nor is it the government’s role to eliminate said risk.
WAW
August 26th, 2011
2:46 pm
Reply: Dude, I’m still waiting for your bill to pay for your two “shoot now, pay later” wars. All I’ve done is release W’s hold on everything passed by Congress for eight years. He averaged 600 per year. I’ve still got a long way to go to administer the will of Congress.
That Black guy
August 26th, 2011
2:50 pm
Darwin
August 26th, 2011
2:28 pm
Let’s eliminate all regulations. No more FDA. If you eat or take a pill and get sick and die, well, that’s the price you pay for economic freedom. Let’s roll the clock back to the glory years of the 18th and 19th centuries, and even the early 20th century. No more laws. Every man, woman, and child for themselves. I might need to take a pill, as the right wing rhetoric continues to kill me. Taxes and regulations are what’s keeping us from having total employment and a full steam ahead economcy. It’s so simple. Why didn’t I think of that?
Yup, because that is the ONLY other option. It is truly an either/or situation. Nothing EXTREME about that statement right there.
That BS is the EXACT reason I left the Dem party and why I won’t join the Repub party.
Newsflash! Indies dispise BOTH extremes.
Junior Samples
August 26th, 2011
2:54 pm
Ok, Tiberius
How many jobs will Corporate America offer our citizens once there are no regulations?
What regulations are preventing you from hiring more people?
BuyMadeinUSjobs
August 26th, 2011
2:55 pm
What do you think big government is????? If you cut Government spending too much whether it is , the trillions spent for defense, which pays employees who shop at stores creating jobs there, for truckers hauling the stuff, warehouse etc. State workers such as teachers are paid and spend that money at srores, doctor offices etc thereby creating jobs there. Social secuity, medicare, medicaid, housing, all go to doctors, nursing homes hospitals, stores again creating jobs all along the chain with the demand from government spending (our taxes) at its root. Can you afford $80,000 to keep a disabled relative in nursing home or stay home from work to take care of them. 50 million Americans are on food
stamps, they spend them at grocery stores creating jobs, these employees spend at gas stations restaurants,doctors, lawyers who hire employees who create more jobs by spending money. Due to this jobs depression and which could become a world wide full blown depression without government spending to us.. Do you know of any job not supported by government spending at its root???? Most of us and our children/grandchildren will never make millions to save for retirement.. About 40 years ago and since we have been told work hard and get the American dream, where is it???China Those government programs for the lower class/middle class were hard fought for and we will not get them back, if we let them go.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
2:59 pm
“How many jobs will Corporate America offer our citizens once there are no regulations?”
Since no one is advocating “NO” regulations, your question has no relevance.
“What regulations are preventing you from hiring more people?”
Any and all that cost businesses money. That is why there needs to be a top-down review of every one of them by regulators AND business owners.
Jim Crowe
August 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
Reply: Dude, I’m still waiting for your bill to pay for your two “shoot now, pay later” wars.
Exactly. Imagine what better financial footing this country would be on if we hadnt blow hundreds of billions chasing the boogie man in Iraq.
Obama really has two major things working against him.
1. He followed the worst president ever ( and it wasn’t really close )
2. He is black.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
Hyperbole much, BuyMadeinUSjobs?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
Jed: All they have done is argue with President Obama about everything.
———–
Yes, it is unfortunate that your Idiot Messiah is so obstructionist, and insists on a “my way or the highway” approach to spending, taxes, and regulation.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
“Exactly. Imagine what better financial footing this country would be on if we hadnt blow hundreds of billions chasing the boogie man in Iraq.”
Well considering that the U.S. debt is now at $14.8 trillion and rising, and the cost of both Iraq and Afghanistan have been calculated at just over $1 trillion total, I’d say that our financial footing wouldn’t be much different at all, seeing as we’re taking about a figure that is LESS than the debt grows each year.
That Black guy
August 26th, 2011
3:11 pm
And I’m sure this EVIL company is thrilled about gov’t regulation enforcement.
Eco-zealous feds target Gibson guitars, antique piano sellers; Updated: Gibson explains, exposes DOJ overreach
Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars…
The question in the first raid seemed to be whether Gibson had been buying illegally harvested hardwoods from protected forests, such as the Madagascar ebony that makes for such lovely fretboards. And if Gibson did knowingly import illegally harvested ebony from Madagascar, that wouldn’t be a negligible offense…
The core issue is Gibson’s purchase of wood for use in guitar fingerboards. The wood is not raw, nor is it finished. Juszkiewicz explains that the wood is purchased from Madagascar when it is “two-thirds of the way” finished. Once purchased, the wood is brought to America, where it is finished by American workers. According to the Obama administration, purchasing unfinished wood is a violation of Madagascarian law…
“So the government’s contention is that because American workers are working on that and finishing it, that it is not a finished product and, therefore, initially Madagascar law – and now I guess they’re contending Indian law – says you can’t remove unfinished product from the market. So in other words, if a person in Madagascar had completed the work on that blank, it would be legal. But the fact that American workers are finishing the work in the United States, makes it illegal, as far as their concerned.”
“The government’s position is, that is the law of the land in Madagascar and they are saying that is the law of the land in India. That is not the case. The fact is, we have affidavits from numerous government officials – and this court case, specifically now, is forMadagascar wood. We have affidavits from virtually every govt official saying that it is legal, that their definition of what is legal is a fingerboard blank and its been exported within every certification that is necessary. So they have the arrogance to interpret Madagascar law differently than the people of Madagascar.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/26/eco-zealous-feds-target-gibson-guitars-antique-piano-sellers/
I’m sure the AMERICANS that may be effected by this are SOOO glad for this gov’t overreach.
Junior Samples
August 26th, 2011
3:11 pm
Tiberius,
Since you failed to answer the question, allow me to rephrase.
What regulation is preventing Corporate America from hiring new employees?
And, how many people will you hire now that said regulation is no longer costing you additional money?
Be specific. No hyperbole. No generalizations.
Jim Crowe
August 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
Well considering that the U.S. debt is now at $14.8 trillion and rising, and the cost of both Iraq and Afghanistan have been calculated at just over $1 trillion total, I’d say that our financial footing wouldn’t be much different at all, seeing as we’re taking about a figure that is LESS than the debt grows each year.
Yes and of that 14trillion the overwhelming majority has been accumulated under a republican president.
W and Reagan being the worst offenders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Ill await your spin.
EJ
August 26th, 2011
3:25 pm
To all the nay sayers, please submit your info to your representatives….why not?…..then can we all get along???????? Trust me, Life is too short!!!!!!!!!
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
3:28 pm
Technically, Jim Crowe, what you’re engaging in is called a deflection. I answered your question, which arguable diminished the hyperbole of your original statement, so therefore you move onto who is responsible without admitting that your initial premise might just have been wrong. Typical of many liberals when caught in a similar situation over at the Children’s Table, aka, the Bookman Blog.
However, to answer your deflection, debt is accumulated by two branches of government, the Executive and the Legislative. The Executive is far less responsible for deficit spending these days as they were during the time before a strong Legislative branch as we have had for more than 50 years now. In short, the Legislative branch reigns supreme in government these days when it comes to spending, as Presidents do not exercise their veto pen very often anymore.
That being said, both parties in Congress are equally to blame for excessive spending, although the edge goes slightly to the Democrat party (roughly 52%-48%) in generating the majority of the debt we have right now.
Any further schooling on the reality of Washington, D.C. you need? Just ask.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
3:32 pm
Answered already, Junior Samples. Your inability to understand my answer does not constitute a failure on my part.
All I know is that a recent study showed that regulatory costs now exceeds the tax burden corporations pay. If the regulatory side and the business side can’t find agreement that those costs should be lowered with reduced regulations that overreach, then we are doomed as a nation.
Rafe Hollister
August 26th, 2011
3:37 pm
Every Lib on here questions why more regulation is bad and states that regs keep our food safe and our air clean and ask how the much the lack of regulation costs the USA.
As Tiberius has pointed out multiple times, you guys are either or, the choices to you seem to be over regulate or no regulations. Well, I have a qustion for anyone who wants to answer.
According to modern legend espoused by the Democrat followers, everything was wonderful on earth when Bill Clinton was president. The air was clean and brisk, everyone had a job, the economy was booming, the lion layed down with the lamb and peace and prosperity prevailed. And, he balanced the budget, you say.
Well, if we had enough regulations and regulators back then to give us this nirvana, why do we need thousands of new regs now?
Rafe Hollister
August 26th, 2011
3:48 pm
Jim Crowe, I watched a tape last night of Barry, excoriating Bush for raising the debt almost double from 5T to 9T in only 8 years. He said Bush was unpatriotic and the rise was indefenseable.
With the new limit we can be sure that Obama will have increased it from 9T to 16.5T in four years or less. Seems to me he is as unpatriotic as he accused Bush of being. But, then again, I am not a koolaid drinker, just an interested observer.
That Black guy
August 26th, 2011
3:53 pm
Tiberius, I agree with you about the “Children’s Table”. Although I still visit because there are some smart posters over there (you included until you escaped). Plus I like to watch them whine “Jay, he’s touching me”
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
3:54 pm
“Well, if we had enough regulations and regulators back then to give us this nirvana, why do we need thousands of new regs now?”
Excellent point, Rafe!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 26th, 2011
3:56 pm
Death of the United States by a thousand cuts, er, tax increases.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
3:56 pm
That black guy, their idea of a serious thought over at The Children’s Table is typing their nonsense while frowning.
williebkind
August 26th, 2011
4:03 pm
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
1:06 pm
Whose history did you read? Was it written by a northener, european, southerner, someone in the frontier, just whose history did you read?
MarkV
August 26th, 2011
4:03 pm
Tiberius @2:24 pm: “MarkV, if you are here to make points in an argument by finding a statement made by an opinion columnist and then citing a cherry-picked column by another opinion columnist to win an argument, then you need to get a life.”
Tiberius, if you want to make a point, at least try a little logic. This is Kyle’s blog, and he invites comments to what he has written. He wrote, in essence, that nobody (“not even hard-core Keynesians”) claims there’s a multiplier effect for regulatory costs. I countered that with evidence that he was wrong. Whether I cited “a cherry-picked column by another opinion columnist” is immaterial for making that point. I did not argue that the cited study was non-partisan. And as for you point – that someone “who actually creates jobs,” a euphemism for people whose main interest is profit, would be less- partisan – I hope you are making it with tongue in cheek.
That Black guy
August 26th, 2011
4:06 pm
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
3:56 pm
That black guy, their idea of a serious thought over at The Children’s Table is typing their nonsense while frowning.
Allow me to clairify, I enjoy their NON-political, non-religious topics.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
4:06 pm
“Whose history did you read? Was it written by a northener, european, southerner, someone in the frontier, just whose history did you read?”
I do not limit myself to any one particular point of view, willie, but rather as many as I can find. I then research and make my own conclusions. Your point?
That Black guy
August 26th, 2011
4:08 pm
I guess no one who dresses left wants to answer my question.
U skeered?
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
4:13 pm
Yes, MarkV, it is Kyle’s blog. Thanks for noticing.
And no, my point about your source being partisan, while my point about assigning proper value to a study done by a college professor who doesn’t create jobs, is valid.
Businessmen create jobs, college professors do not. Therefore, I’ll believe a study on what will or will not create jobs from a businessman more valid than one from a college professor.
After all, we’ve seen what academics have done for job creation in the past 2 1/2 years, haven’t we?
williebkind
August 26th, 2011
4:13 pm
My point is that history is/has been rewritten to fit the agendas of certain special interest groups. For instance take the confederate battle flag, it is depicted a symbol of racism and is now in the history books as such because of politcal agendas that believe the end justifies the means–correct history? Also, Glenn Beck did a good presentation of the black man in the early colonies and they were not subjected to such scrutiny but lived life as freemen. The north promoted slavery and made millions but the south took the rap. How deep do you want to go?
Junior Samples
August 26th, 2011
4:14 pm
Tiberius,
I expected to to walk around the answer, and you were right on queue.
Not able to provide a single regulation that once removed will create jobs is what I anticipated from you.
All talk, no facts.
Regulations are the side effect from businesses behaving badly. I’ll provide an example.
Enron, WorldCom, and a few others are responsible for Sarbanes-Oxley. While it certainly does cost corporations money, it sparked a boom industry in relation to audit and compliance. Hundreds of accounting grads could find work auditing the books of others. Additionally, corporations hired many people specifically to keep them in compliance. In some cases entire departments were added.
So for starters, there’s one example of a single regulation creating jobs. You, on the other hand, have failed to produce one example.
Please feel free to provide even more rhetoric, hyberbole, or whatever talking points you find to support your position. I’m no longer expecting you to provide a single regulation that once removed, will create jobs. You simply don’t have the answer, so you’re off the hook.
Have a great weekend!
MrLiberty
August 26th, 2011
4:16 pm
Did anyone (besides Ron Paul) demand that BUSH come clean as to the cost to our liberties of the Patriot Act, the TSA, the DHS, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the oppressive police state he created “for our security?”
Republicans would probably get a lot less crap if they showed some principles for a change and held all presidents to the same standard (not that the democrats are any better – where is the anti-war left these days by the way?). That’s what has always been great about Ron Paul. He has never wavered in his principles or his conviction to speak his mind, regardless of which party is in power.
Ron Paul 2012.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
4:16 pm
That black guy, your 3:11 post was an excellent example of a DOJ gone rogue, as they have done far too often with Holder at the helm.
If you lined up John Mitchell, John Ashcroft and Eric Holder, I’d be hard-pressed to pick out the worst one of that bunch of AG’s.
Darwin
August 26th, 2011
4:18 pm
Maybe some of these are financial regulations that helped cause our current economic mess. Which of course the Repub oppose. Remember when Reagan eliminated many regulations on the Savings & Loan institutions in the 1980s? How did that turn out? Didn’t we taxpayers have to go in and bail them out? So ok, eliminate the regulations. You’ll still have to bail them out and add it to the US debt because they’re too big to fail. We’ve been down that road before. Apparently, we’re going to go down it again, and again, and again…
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
4:21 pm
All very good points, willie (although Beck tended to stretch the positives a bit much IMO).
My point back to the earlier poster who asserted that the GOP has done more for African Americans (he says due to freeing the slaves) than the Democrat party is that his assertion still doesn’t make any sense.
Not that I think pandering to the AA community with programs as we have today is doing much for them, either.
laurie
August 26th, 2011
4:24 pm
WEll said carlosgvv
MrLiberty
August 26th, 2011
4:24 pm
Junior Samples – Sarbanes Oxley is one of the greatest piece of business destroying legislation that was ever enacted. I would use labels like liberal to describe you, but statist is probably better, along with economically ignorant. The jerks who now must infest companies to keep them compliant do not add to the productivity of the business. They take away profits, higher employee salaries, investments, etc. Most of the problems with Enron, WorldCom and others were the direct result of government regulations and regulatory failures. The vast majority of businesses were not screwing anyone, but plenty of great businesses have literally been wiped out by these regulations. Plenty more never went public to avoid SOX, thus depriving them of capital to expand, etc. and plenty of others went back to being private, thus depriving investors of the benefits of their profits.
If you want an example of a regulation whose removal would create jobs, I will give you one. Currently the US taxes all foreign capital derived abroad if it is brought back into the US. Literally trillions of dollars sit offshore (where it has already been taxed once by the country of origin) that could be brought back into this country to create jobs and investment. As far as I know, only Ron Paul has mentioned ending this restrictive law that is keeping this money out of the US. Big surprise, he is the only candidate with any clue on economics.
Junior, go to http://www.mises.org and get a free education in Austrian economics. Virtually every book or piece of literature is available for free download. Do yourself a favor.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
4:27 pm
“Enron, WorldCom, and a few others are responsible for Sarbanes-Oxley. While it certainly does cost corporations money, it sparked a boom industry in relation to audit and compliance. Hundreds of accounting grads could find work auditing the books of others. Additionally, corporations hired many people specifically to keep them in compliance. In some cases entire departments were added.”
Junior Samples, I’m calling BS on the above post. While in RARE occasions someone may have created an extra job to comply, many existing firms simply took up the slack. And all the while those extra compliance jobs that WERE created kept a job that produced something from being created.
Nice try.
Rafe Hollister
August 26th, 2011
4:27 pm
BR549
After about 10 seconds of distracted thought I came up with one. How about the reg that makes Viagra, Cialis, etc a Rx drug. Put them over the counter and you significantly increase the amount of each sold creating jobs in manufacturing, marketing,shipping, stocking of these ED drugs plus increasing the amount of other products (condoms, FDS, flowers, wine, fancy underware, creams, lotions, massage oil and thousands of other products) sold and the jobs created by those sales. A definite multiplier effect so much that I think I have ended the recession by removing one stupid regulation. Just think what we could do if we removed 2 or 3. They hold back the economy.
Ayn Rant
August 26th, 2011
4:29 pm
Kyle, every cent the federal government “takes out” of the economy is distributed back into the economy, often to worthy causes. Except for some miniscule foreign aid projects, every cent the government collects and spends goes directly or indirectly into American jobs. The implication that government spending goes into some black hole, never to emerge, is plain wrong.
Dollar for dollar, government spending goes to government employees, employees on government-sponsored projects, and benefits for the elderly, the impaired, and the unemployed. When income received from the government is spent, even more jobs are created or sustained by consumer spending in the private sector.
Government spending creates good jobs faster than private enterprise. Government-sponsored jobs typically offer better pay, job security, and health care and retirements benefits. Some government-sponsored jobs are important to the nation; many are not.
Many jobs created by government spending are not self-sustaining because those jobs create no added value beyond the cost of the job. Jobs created by successful private enterprise are self-sustaining because those jobs create products and services that are worth more than cost of the jobs. So, private enterprise jobs are preferable to government sponsored jobs, but many needs of modern civilization cannot be addressed by private enterprise.
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
4:31 pm
“So ok, eliminate the regulations. You’ll still have to bail them out and add it to the US debt because they’re too big to fail.”
Really, Darwin? Why?
Do you have kids? If they misbehave do you let them continue to do what they did to get into trouble? Of course not. A responsible parent wouldn’t.
So why do we keep bailing out the people who misbehave in the financial / manufacturing industries?
What lesson is being learned, Darwin?
Jefferson
August 26th, 2011
4:34 pm
Why the fear? What does this say about you?
Tiberius
August 26th, 2011
4:36 pm
“Kyle, every cent the federal government “takes out” of the economy is distributed back into the economy”
Your entire post just failed, Ayn Rant.
If the government actually took only that which it needed, your point might be valid. Our government goes into deficit spending within 6 months of operations each and every year. So we’re borrowing that money, with no plan with which to pay it back.
That is a net loss strategy, Ayn.