Regulation without Representation

Between taxes and regulation, is it any wonder why people can't make it?


Regulator Without Peer

By at least one measure, Obama surpasses all of his predecessors.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304311204579505953682216682?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304311204579505953682216682.html

Anyone wondering why the U.S. economy can't seem to grow at its usual pace should examine one product category where production is booming: federal regulation.

Washington set a new record in 2013 by issuing final rules consuming 26,417 pages in the Federal Register. While plenty of government employees deserve credit for this milestone, leadership matters. And by this measure President Obama has never been surpassed in the Oval Office.

The latest rule-making tally comes from the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Wayne Crews, who on April 29 will publish his annual review of federal regulation in "Ten Thousand Commandments." This is important work because politicians and the media treat regulation as a largely cost-free public good. Mr. Crews knows better.

Congress may be mired in gridlock, but the federal bureaucracy is busier than ever. In 2013 the Federal Register contained 3,659 "final" rules, which means they now must be obeyed, and 2,594 proposed rules on their way to becoming orders from political headquarters.

The Federal Register finished 2013 at 79,311 pages, the fourth highest total in history. That didn't match President Obama's 2010 all-time record of 81,405 pages. But Mr. Obama can console himself by noting that of the five highest Federal Register page counts, four have occurred on his watch. The other was 79,435 pages under President George W. Bush in 2008.

And the feds aren't letting up. Mr. Crews reports that there are another 3,305 regulations moving through the pipeline on their way to being imposed. One hundred and ninety-one of those are "economically significant" rules, which are defined as having costs of at least $100 million a year. Keep in mind that the feds routinely low-ball their cost estimates so the public will continue to think regulation is free.

Drawing largely on government statistics, Mr. Crews estimates that the overall cost of regulatory compliance and its economic impact is about $1.9 trillion annually. This means that the burden of complying with federal rules costs roughly the annual GDP of Australia, Canada or Italy.

This regulatory tax makes U.S. businesses less competitive, but it also burdens every American because it is embedded in the prices of all goods and services. Mr. Crews estimates that "U.S. households 'pay' $14,974 annually in regulatory hidden tax," or 23% of the average income of $65,596.

All of this is the fruit of ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and the manifold other expansions of government that have marked the Obama years. By far their greatest and most tragic cost has been slower economic growth, which has meant fewer jobs, lower incomes and diminished economic possibilities for tens of millions of Americans.

Thats right! Let's cease all regulations and let the banks destroy the economy again, like they did on Bush's watch!

News Buzzard wrote:Thats right! Let's cease all regulations and let the banks destroy the economy again, like they did on Bush's watch!

The collapse followed the collapse of the CRA—like everything else "affordable".

How many Democrats made millions posing as a CEO of Fannie Mae—which led to the crash?

Senator Chuck Schumer precipitated the crash, which assured a Democrat would take the Presidency.

How many times did Bush (among others) warn of the impending failure of Obama's only appearance as a "real" lawyer?

(Putting banks in the position of giving away mortgages they would not have ordinarily written).




.

That's a load of bulldoody. The banks took advantage of de-regulation and turned it into a greedy, criminal, ponzi operation with the Bush Treasury approval. The Great Recession had very little to do with the CRA and Chuck Schumer. Only fools trust Wall Street!

Bulldoody?

News Buzzard wrote:Thats right! Let's cease all regulations and let the banks destroy the economy again, like they did on Bush's watch!

You must have missed this:

The other was 79,435 pages under President George W. Bush in 2008.

You just posted that this country was an oligarchy, with which I agree.

So why support the oligarchs writing metric fu*k-tons of regulations every year, that obscure and cover their tightening grip of power while saddling us normal Mundanes with millions of pages of regulations that, in all honesty, can never be complied with, simply due to the complexity, volume and often contradictory nature of these regulations?

Don't be this guy:

In 2004, during the Bush years, the Securities and Exchange Commission gave away the store to banks by letting them leverage too much of their capital in sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps, hence the collapse of Lehman and near collapse of the rest our financial system. I see regulations as a reaction to people and companies who are constantly gaming the system for their own benefit. You can only have a climate of de-regulation if people are going to play by whatever rules you have, but that never happens in the good old USA. We live in a me-me-me country where everyone is out for themselves!  

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1397757685-G2wQSCBdRStSFkWX7phVbQ

News Buzzard wrote: We live in a me-me-me country where everyone is out for themselves!

While we would like it to be otherwise, this is simply human nature.

Would you like to pay my mortgage payment each month?

The answer is not to smother everybody in a blanket of millions of regulations.

That is not freedom.

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Buzzard wrote: We live in a me-me-me country where everyone is out for themselves!

While we would like it to be otherwise, this is simply human nature.

Would like to pay my mortgage payment each month?

The answer is not to smother everybody in a blanket of millions of regulations.

That is not freedom.

Just got through my e-mails and found this:

"Conservatives believe that liberty, understood as a general absence of interference, and individual rights, which cannot be exhaustively listed, are natural and that governmental restrictions on them must be as few as possible and rigorously justified. Merely invoking the right of a majority to have its way is an insufficient justification."

.

Merely invoking the right of a majority to have its way is an insufficient justification

The tyranny of the majority.

Anti Federalist wrote:

Merely invoking the right of a majority to have its way is an insufficient justification

The tyranny of the majority.

I hope not!





.

Regulations of business has almost killed small business.

News Hawk wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

Merely invoking the right of a majority to have its way is an insufficient justification

The tyranny of the majority.

I hope not!





.

Great piece of agitprop!
Man if that ain't the truth in one picture.

Back door tyranny by any other name. By pass every check and balance designed to prevent usurpation of power of consent of the people. Get to rob the productive of their hard won prosperity under the guise of spreading the wealth, or redistribution as the lie is now called. Create a free shit mob with the proceeds of this scheme of shakedown and extortion, use them as a guaranteed gerrymandered vote fraud block through redistricting, and threaten all whose wealth is confiscated with the barrel of a gun if they refuse to submit.

Question is where does this insanity end?

We see 2 different countries. I see an oligarchy where the overwhelming majority of the wealth is held by a relatively few who want to remove all regulations and expand their wealth. And of course the wealthy always want a very strong defense budget to protect them and their wealth. The biggest threat to our country is Citizens United !

News Buzzard wrote:We see 2 different countries. I see an oligarchy where the overwhelming majority of the wealth is held by a relatively few who want to remove all regulations and expand their wealth. And of course the wealthy always want a very strong defense budget to protect them and their wealth. The biggest threat to our country is Citizens United !

They want regulations removed on them, NB.

The vast majority of regulations that hamstring us on a daily basis, they want left in place or expanded.

That makes the oligarchs the problem, not the government. The economy is picking up and I just posted a graph that has this year possibly being the best for job creation since the Clinton years, so I'm not buying the theory that regulations are choking us off. I believe the very bad recession and the very obstructive congress has slowed down our recovery.

News Buzzard wrote:That makes the oligarchs the problem, not the government. The economy is picking up and I just posted a graph that has this year possibly being the best for job creation since the Clinton years, so I'm not buying the theory that regulations are choking us off. I believe the very bad recession and the very obstructive congress has slowed down our recovery.

I don't approach it from a jobs perspective.

The old USSR had "full employment".

I approach it from a freedom perspective.

How is this, in any way, a representative government, when not a single representative votes for these rules?

Anti Federalist wrote:

How is this, in any way, a representative government, when not a single representative votes for these rules?

I think most would agree that some/many of our "bought-off" politicians are THE problem but our approach to the solution differs...why rant/rail with no effect, if you want change, you have to get on the inside to affect it. Run for office rather than run away ...

News Pigeon wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

How is this, in any way, a representative government, when not a single representative votes for these rules?

I think most would agree  that some/many of our "bought-off" politicians are THE problem but our approach to the solution differs...why rant/rail with no effect, if you want change, you have to get on the inside to affect it. Run for office rather than run away ...

That's very good advice, News Pigeon, and I frequently give it out here on the local level where any citizen can sign up and run for office, but as we move higher up in the food chain of politics it takes a lot of money to sign up for office, and therein lies the problem. Money corrupts and we have to get away from money based campaigns. We need to get back to "by the people...." We have become a government of who can buy the election and that's very dangerous.

News Buzzard wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

How is this, in any way, a representative government, when not a single representative votes for these rules?

I think most would agree  that some/many of our "bought-off" politicians are THE problem but our approach to the solution differs...why rant/rail with no effect, if you want change, you have to get on the inside to affect it. Run for office rather than run away ...

That's very good advice, News Pigeon, and I frequently give it out here on the local level where any citizen can sign up and run for office, but as we move higher up in the food chain of politics it takes a lot of money to sign up for office, and therein lies the problem. Money corrupts and we have to get away from money based campaigns. We need to get back to "by the people...." We have become a government of who can buy the election and that's very dangerous.

You're singing to the choir brother....The SC has been very instrumental in our present predicament, I guess even they are beholden to the extreme wealth calling the shots!

News Pigeon wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

How is this, in any way, a representative government, when not a single representative votes for these rules?

I think most would agree  that some/many of our "bought-off" politicians are THE problem but our approach to the solution differs...why rant/rail with no effect, if you want change, you have to get on the inside to affect it. Run for office rather than run away ...

Because if you don't solicit funds and kiss the asses of the very same people that bought off everybody before you, then you will go absolutely nowhere.

That said, I do everything I can to get "my guys" on the inside.

Anti Federalist wrote:

That said, I do everything I can to get "my guys" on the inside.

Are you Charles or David Koch ?    

News Buzzard wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

That said, I do everything I can to get "my guys" on the inside.

Are you Charles or David Koch ?    

Exactly, the TEA partiers are merely "toting the water" for the very people who have created the mess they whine about! How insane is that....

Look who's talking…..