Unrelenting partisanship can strangle our nation's political process and divert our energies from building our economy. And in the midst of this year's deficit debate, we're seeing a great deal of that deleterious behavior playing out inside the Beltway.
When adhering to a partisan mindset, lawmakers reject any ideas that originate from their opposition, regardless of merit. And the political welfare of our nation -- which is increasingly comprised of independents who are practically and politically moderate problem solvers -- suffers as a result.
This partisanship has been evident in the current debate over federal regulations. Catering to their base, the administration has been resolute in its pursuit of aggressive, sometimes duplicative, and often excessive regulatory agendas. And all of these, as we know, come with a hefty price tag -- ill-timed as we continue to see stagnant job growth and unemployment numbers.
Some Republicans, on the other hand, tout points calling for the dismantling of EPA, the end of regulation, and the unshackling of our economy. But any unbiased observer can see that such drastic action is uncalled for.
Rather than adhering so closely to talking points and principal, our regulators and lawmakers need to turn their focus to sensibility and common sense. Regulation does not have to be -- and should not be -- the political football that it has become in recent years. And history demonstrates this to be true.
The carbon monoxide standards which limit the allowable level of the pollutant in cities over any given eighthour period have remained constant since 1971. The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that the existing limit of 9 parts per million adequately protects human health and the environment, adding stability to businesses forced to comply with the measure. This decades-old standard is a prime example of the type of long-lasting, effecting regulation we need.
Unfortunately, this kind of symbiotic relationship is far from a foregone conclusion when creating regulations.
Since the 1970s, EPA has defined milk as an "oil" and regulated it accordingly. That meant the agency subjected a small family dairy farm in Pennsylvania to the same costly rules designed to prevent oil spills as drilling operators in the Gulf of Mexico.
U.S. regulatory czar Cass Sunstein recently applauded the agency for saving America's milk industry as much as $1.4 billion over the next decade by exempting it from the rule back in May. However, the refinement of this rule raises larger questions: what kind of regulatory process would enable such a costly, clearly irrational rule to weigh on American small businesses for nearly 40 years? How much can we save other industries in the next decade that they could reinvest in job creation?
This systemic problem extends to pending regulations as well.
These programs have consequences for everyday businesspeople, often forcing them to hire legal teams and compliance officers, buy new equipment, change practices, or limit growth or expansion. Randy O'Dell of Greenville, Ohio was forced to pay $200,000 for equipment to meet EPA standards at his glassmaking company in 2006, standards that were later relaxed. Efforts to create new jobs at a company like O'Dell's Jafe Decorating come to a standstill when regulations become overly burdensome. Creating a level of uncertainty brings reinvestment to a halt.
These challenges to our small businesses and the communities and neighborhoods they serve illustrate why I'm chairing the Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations campaign to restore sensibility to our regulatory process using practical solutions. This balance will require compromise to ensure that regulations are adding benefit to people's lives today without charging the bill to future generations.
The sooner we remove incendiary politics from our nation's rulemaking process, the sooner we can restore the health of our economy -- and our political culture.
Blanche Lincoln is a former U.S. Senator from Arkansas and the chair of the National Federation of Independent Businesses' Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations campaign.
Follow Blanche Lincoln on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SensibleRegs
Obama Picks a Fight to Define 2012 Election: Margaret Carlson
Perry vs. Romney: Does it matter whom Obama faces in 2012? In short, yes.
David Weprin's loss in New York presages President Obama's defeat in 2012
O'Malley praises Rick Perry, predicts Obama win in 2012
Obama 2012 & The Jews - the ground just shifted
Obama Plan Won't Include Changes to Social Security
Electoral college switch could hurt Obama in 2012
As Obama falters, are Hispanics an opportunity for GOP?
<strong>Kucinich, Democrats: Obama Needs a Primary Challenger </strong>
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Through the media - such as your essay above - You give all the appearances of being a reasonable person. I suppose you were elected and re-elected to Congress because of your reasonable media appearance. Then you lost your last election by a wide margin. How did that happen? I can only assume your media appearance was successfully portrayed differently by your opposition.
You lost the media game.
Now you receive a salary (and maybe a bonus) to project and maintain that reasonable media appearance in the private sector. Your primary audience is the members of your organization's board of directors. I suppose you are very mindful of them as you project your appearance to us - your secondary audience.
But Blanche, for God sake! Our country is drowning in media appearances of reasonableness, or sincerity, or true belief, or regulatory efficiency, or jobs, jobs, jobs or whatever works.
But, alas, I fear (I hope I am wrong) that you don't get it. I fear you don't see it. I fear your salary (and bonus) PROVE to you that you are one of the "good guys" and are not part of the problem.
Blanche, the system needs to be reformed. We are being choked to death by all this so-called "communication" that you are doing well in.
Please read, "Reform Congress/Save Ourselves" at -
http://americanconversationgroup.blogspot.com/p/key-essay.html
- and let me know your thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel Hough Jones
Then, the Soviets took over. They came into the little shop and said "this is no longer yours, it's ours, and we'll give you what we think you need". This made Anne (or whatever her real name was) mad, and understandably so.
Years went by, Anne moved to America and changed her name to Ayn and learned the language and became of all things, a scriptwriter in Hollywood. Some sort of mystique grew around her. Her ideology started off with the idea that if people are left on their own, they will do all they can and the best that they can, in order to help themselves. Probably true. These successful people will need more goods and services from other people, so the other people will become very productive, to help THEMselves. So far, makes sense. Everybody is helping everybody else become really successful so that they can be even more successful themselves.
She knew how to get the attention, became something of
Article 1 section 8 contains the means of creating jobs.
1) Stop tax breaks for any person or business, except low profit companies & citizens living under the poverty line, and have all pay the same taxes nation wide.
2) Businesses will be taxed on gross income like every citizen but have an exemption for paying taxed employees preventing double taxing of money or no employee taxation.
3) Return coining US money to government & Regulate corporations, disallow them from operating in this nation or selling their goods until all employable US citizens are employed.
The President shall himself read every department's budget and monies spent, determine which fulfills the Constitution's Preamble and will of the people then have everything else cut out of the budget. Congress' oath protecting the constitution demands it's done. Problems solved!
You say this administration pursues aggressive and often duplicitous regulations. Then you offer no examples of this harsh appraisal. Please name just one duplicitous regulation offered by the Obama administration. And how about one or two that are aggressive?
You can't.
Now go away.
So it must be the Left that are the extremists in this country.
Regulation changed that. Regulations came into existence to correct horrible wrongs; to protect people from other people who didn't even recognize the horrible injustices they were committing.
Regulations protect air and water, safety and health from people who would not otherwise consider the environment in or outside of the businesses the own and run.
We've all seen speed limit signs on highways. They're not there to regulate the road.
So just as people would endanger their lives and the lives of others without the laws regulating their behavior on the highway so too would people endanger lives without regulations imposed upon them in their businesses.
Do we need to go into the lawlessness that stems from deregulation:
The S&L frauds, the Enron debacle and the Wall Street flimflams to recognize the absolute need to regulate people.
The extremes to be avoided are those that occur because of a lack of regulation.
But it isn't cost that is real the issue. By limiting trial awards, NO ONE will be able to sue for malpractice unless they are rich--because lawyers, who currently take cases on contingency, no longer will do so. And, you should know that more people die or are injured every year by medical malpractice and negligence than by guns. So, after the surgeon cuts off the wrong leg--what do you do? And, yes, it has happened. That's why, nowadays, if you have surgery on any part of you there are two of, you must personally mark the part yourself to indicate the "right" one.
It's just another way for the rich to make sure that if you aren't, you can be taken advantage of with no recourse. That's the real reason for tort reform.
Anyone who calls for doing away with these agencies should try reading some history and see what it was like before we had any protections in place. Rivers that caught fire, toxins & waste in food, the list goes on and on. Smart regulations, certainly! But don't try and pretend that we would be better off relying on the good intentions of corporations.
Erik
http://eaprince.blogspot.com
"The council majority plays fast and lose with the law and ethics and I am certain as individuals they will step over the line and it won't be long before the DA or more likely the AG's [state Attorney General's] office comes knocking on the door. …
I have never, however, seen a council such as this one. They lack skill, training, education, knowledge, they fail to study (or at least learn). The majority either lies or are so lacking in the necessary skills that they actually believe the junk they say.
They act as if they are owners of the business that is the municipal government of the City of Costa Mesa, but they are not, they are merely trustees of these public assets both human and physical and they fail in that role completely. They are in my opinion, incompetent, unskilled and unethical.