When you ask small business owners from Nevada to Pennsylvania what the greatest obstacle in the way of their success is, they echo what numerous studies have indicated for months: government regulations. They'll point to specific rules like the lead renovation, repair and painting rule, which impose costly and redundant training and certification costs on painters, plumbers and remodeling contractors. Or they might discuss new threats that are in the works, such as an EPA rule under White House review that could set new limits for commercial boiler emissions, which are already so closely regulated they can barely be measured.
But overwhelmingly, small businesses point out the paralysis and uncertainty they feel because of the nearly 4,200 pending regulations backed up in the pipeline. Over the last five years the number of rules costing $100 million or more has increased by 60 percent. In 2010 alone, the number of major rules introduced increased by over 20 percent from the previous year. These figures are a clear indicator of how out of balance the system has become, and it's having real consequences for the business community. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll found 85 percent of small businesses aren't hiring. Nearly half said government regulations were a reason why.
For many small business owners, a string of stories over the past several weeks has effectively confirmed theirs fears that the federal regulatory agenda is out of touch with today's economic realities, and even that it's not on their side at all. Lest it bog him down further, President Obama has an opportunity to address these concerns by reaffirming his commitment to creating a business-friendly regulatory environment.
Specifically, the issue emerged last month when a high-ranking EPA official, Regional Administrator Al Armendariz, explained his agency's philosophy of 'crucifying' oil and gas companies to make it easier to regulate private companies. Mr. Armendariz resigned days after his comments surfaced. He was scheduled to clarify his remarks in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee today, but canceled his appearence late Tuesday night. Unfortunately, the issue won't go away by ignoring it. The administration needs to address the perceived "us versus them" attitude between federal regulators and the private sector, and allay the worries of countless small business owners who are watching closely.
Fortunately, there's reason to believe the course can be changed. By calling for greater transparency and accountability we can begin to again reverse the disconnection between Washington and the rest of the country. And the President has taken many steps to do that. In May he stated: "We will remain vigilant when it comes to eliminating regulations that are not necessary or that impose unnecessary burdens on America's families and businesses." This is welcome progress, but breaking the cycle and improving the process will take more than public statements and executive orders alone. The President needs to make practical reforms to clean up the regulatory process; many small businesses can't wait until November.
There are a number of commonsense steps the President could take to start. Ideas like requiring agencies to use a consistent process to evaluate new data and determine if new regulations are needed; including indirect costs when calculating the benefits and costs of proposed rules; and soliciting small business input throughout the regulatory process would go a long way in making the changes small businesses need. Just as importantly, taking these steps would signal to business owners that President Obama is fighting for the changes he promised.
When pitted against each other, both regulators and the business community suffer, and the mounting tension between the two could hurt the President's campaign. I don't believe the recent headlines from the EPA reflect the Administration's policies. But by improving the transparency and inclusiveness of the regulatory system, the President can both focus attention on what he is doing to bolster the business environment and ensure we are implementing smarter, more mutually-beneficial rules moving forward.
Follow Blanche Lincoln on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SensibleRegs
John Arensmeyer: Fact Check: EPA Regulations Are Not Small Business's Kryptonite
With more than $4 trillion in cash setting on the sidelines, it should come as a surprise to no one why the economy added only 69,000 jobs in May and unemployment grew to 8.2%. The fact is, Americans no longer trust Wall Street, which reflects negatively on federal banking and market regulators tasked with protecting investors.
Please sign the petition to the U.S. Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committee asking for improved oversight of federal banking and market regulators.
To read more about what we’re trying to do and to sign the petition, click here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s-senate-banking-and-u-s-house-financial-services-committees-use-technology-to-provide-oversight-of-u-s-banking-and-market-regulators?share_id=HTpDoOQNJgpe=d2e
It'll just take a minute!
These companies make zillions in profits that directly effect my profits.
There are also regulations that provide no benefit whatsoever. A simple example that has been around since 1990 is the Tier II reports. As required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act most staes require companies with hazardous chemicals to file a Tier II report. Under this regulations any chemical with an MSDS is considered hazardous.
My company uses only food grade chemicals. As such they are commonly considered non-hazardous. Not so under this regulation.
My company uses several thousand chemicals, most in fairly small quantities. The state where my plant resides uses a reporting threshold of one pound.
I file a 900 plus page Tier II report each year, three chemicals on each page. This report is used by emergency responders that read it enroute while responding to an emergency call. The local Fire Chief admits that they don't and won't read my report. It's too involved to be of any use. (Instead we hold fquent familiarization tours and allow the local emergency responders to use my plant for training.)
Why can't the Fire Chief be heard when he lobbies against receiving reports like mine.
By the way, that useless report costs me about $10K to produce every year.
That is just one example of a regulation that does not work as intended and costs money with no benefit.
Federal regulations (unfortunately) attempt to deal with problems that might affect anyone and any company in the United States of America. How do you calculate that the specific report you refer to costs YOU about $10K per year? Perhaps you should find a better accountant? If that regulation saves ONE life somewhere in the country each year are you suggesting it serves no benefit? Your viewpoint might just be a bit myopic.
Bothered to vote? You seem to forget the right wing is out to decrease eligibility.The right is trying to shrink the voting pie.They actually want to be elected by a LOWER percentage of the American people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Z1Q21_sVU
Um, you mean, "When you ask conservative business owners..." because over here in the real world, the problem most small business owners have is a lack of customers because nobody has any disposable income anymore. This analysis is just completely wrong-headed. The economy needs to be stimulated, not freed of the last few remaining regulations that actually exist. Business needs very badly to be more restrained than it currently is, especially large corporations. Your advice here is just more of the same poison the Republicans have been making us all drink for the past 30 years.
The ONLY federal regs the vast majority of small businesses are affected by are OSHA and workers comp (and I don't even know if work's comp is federal, we just pay it and suck it up).
As far as small business, the REAL small business, this article does not speak for us.
It does disturb me that those who made and profited from the lead paint, the asbestos, and those other bad products, those who applied it to the building in the first place, and those who have profited from its application and use should have been the ones to pay for the cleanup :-) ........similarly for those who, created the poison byproducts, dumped the poisonous aftermath of their production process, and those who put in and abandoned those underground tanks.
The fact is that there are and have been multiple generations of numerous families living high off the fact that they and their ancestors never had to pay for the damages that their brilliant business enterprises, and their amazingly special selves created while passing misery on to others; and forget about inheritance taxes, or any tax of any kind! They're special! They're job creators!
Any honest empericism will lead to the same conclusion. If capitalism was self regulating we never would have had the destruction to our rivers, the fouling of the air and soil in the first place.I remember before the EPA when the river I swam in as a kid boasted belly up poisoned fish and sludge along its shores. Who owns the rivers? Not the befouling industries. We hold them in common. It is ours,all of ours . It is not some private self interested cabals to do as they want with it.
If there are new customers, clients or consumers to serve, businesses will hire.The alternative view is historically inaccurate and a far right wing generated myth.