By Mike Whalen
In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama raised some eyebrows in saying "I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his." While some of the President's critics immediately figured him to be playing around with the numbers, others took it as evidence that the Administration might be more pro-business than it is usually portrayed.
In reality, the statistic was solely a measure of the quantity of regulations, and not their impacts. As the Annenberg Public Policy Center's website FactCheck.org wrote: "It's true (barely) that Bush issued more new regulations than Obama at the same point in their presidencies -- but Obama didn't mention that his cost more."
Unfortunately, when it comes to our current government and regulation, the reality is that where there's smoke there's fire. When one counts "economically significant" regulations, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute has, he or she sees that President Obama has issued 953 in his first three years in office, compared to just 30 that were passed in the first three years of the Bush Administration. This is the more meaningful number, as it shows which regulations have impacted small businesses and made it more difficult for them to expand and hire.
The same numbers also show that economically significant rules affecting small business have also increased substantially. During the first three years of the Bush Administration, 16 new rules of economic significance were issued, compared to 257 in the first three years of the Obama Administration. It is highly concerning that the millions of small businesses in the country, which have historically fueled our economy, are being so uniquely affected by current policy.
I am not anti-regulation. I absolutely recognize its importance in preventing exploitive or dangerous activities, and I am truly proud of America's history of protecting workers and resources. Yet the pendulum has swung so far these days that I regularly hear small business owners asking why the government seems to have it out for them, going so far as to kill previously approved projects at the owner's expense. Everywhere I go, I hear from business owners who are genuinely confused by new governmental regulations, and frustrated with the obstacles that prevent them from hiring new workers. What's going on now is unacceptable, and it makes no sense during this current time of economic uncertainty.
What's perhaps most significant about the current pace of regulation is the circumstances. The past three years have been bleak, and small businesses have greatly struggled to get by. Perhaps it is sensible to consider tinkering with regulatory policy during an economic boom, but it is extremely harmful to recovery to be doing so during a time of economic distress.
America's businesses need all the freedom they can have to get back on their feet and start growing, and that is exactly what will lead to our economic recovery. We want businesses to feel confident enough to undertake new projects and hire new workers, not terrified of the bureaucratic traps that might lie around the corner.
Slowing the pace of regulation would be a big step on the road to economic stability. It would renew confidence that our government is working on our side, instead of against us. The longer we wait, the more small businesses will feel uncertain about the future, and unable to get America back to work.
Mike Whalen is the President & CEO of Heart of America Group, which designs and builds hotels, restaurants and commercial real estate - currently operating 27 restaurants and hotels in six different states. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the Job Creators Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to the preservation of free enterprise: http://jobcreatorsalliance.org.
Follow Job Creators Alliance on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JCAlliance
Rick Santorum Plan To Gut Obama Regulations Faces Giant Hurdles
The Myth of Barack Obama, Regulation Lover | Mother Jones
GOP: Obama regulations are killing jobs
Rick Santorum Plan To Gut Obama Regulations Faces Giant Hurdles
Bloomberg News, Oct. 25, 2011: The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms.
According to SBA, what defines a small business is defined by type of business and then income and employee size. Most small businesses are under 10 Million dollars with some hitting 28 Million and financial based ones hitting 150 Million in assets.
So according to Bloomberg significant federal rules are those costing more than $100 Million dollars. Far out of the range of small businesses. Again, none of the links showed what these rules were.
This article seems bogus. Nothing to back it up. How do I know these regulations were not new ones that deal with the financial meltdown. I don't. Back up your statements. Not all of us are parrots.
Now, where are my crackers.
They have charts with numbers but no source data. This may be an important point but there is no data to back it up.
President Obama has issued 953 is linked to :
http://www.jobcreatorsalliance.org/Business/Capital_Market/FACT_CHECK___Has_the_Obama_Administration_Really_Issued_Fewer_Regulations_.aspx
compared to 257 is linked to same web page:
http://www.jobcreatorsalliance.org/Business/Capital_Market/FACT_CHECK___Has_the_Obama_Administration_Really_Issued_Fewer_Regulations_.aspx
Businesses don't "create" jobs. That's a lie, pure and simple.
The ONLY thing that "creates" jobs, is DEMAND.
Without demand, no business hires. In fact, without demand, no business STAYS in business.
Trickle down economics has in point of fact, devastated what USED to be America's middle class. The group of people who made up the vast majority of the demand for goods and services that business provides..
When Henry Ford paid his employees twice the going rate for labor, his contemporaries were outraged. Why do such a seemingly stupid thing? "Because I want my employees to be my customers, I want them to be able to afford my cars". Sounds pretty smart to me.
Trickle down economics is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Buy into it, and someday YOU TOO will make it to the top and rake in the dough.
Some do, the vast majority don't, and like any Ponzi scheme the majority of the participants end up getting stuck with nothing but the bills.
In America today only 1% of our people are doing well financially, and improving. The rest of us are being left behind with nothing but a massive federal debt to show for it.
Lying about "creating" jobs, isn't part of the solution, it's part of the problem.
When you have 50 customers a day, you handle everything yourself. As your number of customers grows to 60, 75, and 100, you realize that you MUST hire someone because you cannot stretch yourself that thin, and those extra customers will go elsewhere. That's when you hire someone, and what the regulations are is irrelevant.
And the reason you're not hiring is because you DON'T have those extra customers. And why don't you have those extra customers? Because for the last 30 years, you've paid your people less and less, and everyone else has paid their people less and less (not to mention all the jobs you sent overseas), so now we're just too damn broke to become your customers. It has nothing to do with government regulation.
In the post-Citizens United era where corporations are essentially allowed to write their own regulations if they pay to play, there is overwhelming evidence that the regulations currently in place are far too weak and ineffective.
Saving the environment, empowering workers, making the wealthy pay their fair share, universal health care, a living wage and affordable housing for all sound good until you see what happens to the business world when you start implementing these concepts. The minute you endanger companies profits you have discouraged companies from either remaining in the US if it is at all possible to leave, expanding operations and jobs or starting new ventures.
You cannot force an entrepreneur to start a business if it is seen to be a losing proposition, and without the economic boost from business you will never see quality of life improvements for the general public. You can try all you want to persuade a business owner that progressive policies are a win-win, but you aren't going to get very far with most.
That is why small business suffers, while global corporate giants are booming!
The sage continues...
"Keeping us from maiming and killing our employees is too expensive."
"Making sure you don't die from our products (or services) is too expensive."
"Just let us make as much money as we can and go away."
Let's just cut the crap, okay JCA?
As regulations are drafted and enforced now, they create inefficiency, bias, market distortions, and worst of all reduce the efforts of job creators to do what they do best…create jobs!
Kai
Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly.
You state, ‘Creating jobs is a byproduct of running a business not the goal. No one has ever said “I want to create 100 jobs I guess I’ll start a business”.’
Exactly…they want profit. Anything that makes profit easier supports the creation of a byproduct known as ‘job creation’ So we should doing everything thing in our power to promote this byproduct.
You go on, ‘The employers are no more job creators than their customers are, and employers can’t hire any new workers unless there is sufficient demand.’
Exactly and as we know price is a supply and demand are influenced by price so anything that can reduce the cost of manufacturing would be passed onto a consumer in a demand deficient market….ergo, less taxation and lower costly regulations would increase demand, ceteris paribus.
You go on, ‘Every business will try to run with as few employees as possible and will only hire more in order to stay efficient enough to keep up with demand.’
Great…again another reason to lower the barriers that disallow them from running along the efficiency curve, employers should be allowed to hire and fire with greater ease since this goes to the survival of the company. And it is fair. And at the same time promoting lower costs through less regulations and taxes so that these companies can produce more cheaply and hasten increased demand.
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/small-businesses-over-taxed-and-over-regulated-a-survey-says-no/