A persistent GOP line of attack against President Obama is that he's inflicted an intolerable "regulatory burden" on American businesses. Mitt Romney, for instance, has been telling campaign crowds that the Obama administration has issued four times as much regulation as past presidents. This claim is false. According to Bloomberg news, the Obama administration has issued 613 new federal rules so far in his presidency. During the same period in the presidency of George W. Bush, his administration had issued 643 new rules.
Romney has, in fact, repeatedly misrepresented the Obama administration's regulatory record. As with so many Republican Party talking points these days, his claims about Obama and regulation are not intended to be factual statements. Instead, they're meant to advance a larger conservative meme: that regulations are necessarily and inherently bad. The standard GOP view of regulations is that they impose a cost on business and "kill" jobs in the process, while delivering no benefit to the economy or society more broadly. Examples to the contrary abound. For example, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Obama administration issued new rules on deep sea oil drilling. Those regulations might cost industry $200 million or so. But it's quite obvious that the problem in this case isn't "excessive" regulation -- it's that the regulation didn't come soon enough (a disastrous oversight for which the Obama administration bears some responsibility).
The direct costs alone of the Deepwater Horizon disaster could exceed $16 billion. Had the new rules been in place prior to the disaster, billions of dollars would have been saved and a larger environmental catastrophe could have been avoided. In that vein, among the most far-reaching regulations has been the Clean Air Act, whose estimated cost savings since its passage run into the trillions of dollars. In addition, while Republicans repeatedly decry the job-destroying effects of regulations, most sober-minded economists say that the overall effects of regulations on jobs are minimal.
The GOP's attack on regulation is part of a larger attempt to discredit the idea that government can play a positive role in people's lives. That attack is itself based on a fantasy -- that in the absence of the distorting and freedom-destroying effects of government, human action would yield generally optimal outcomes for society as a whole. Such notions themselves hearken back to Adam Smith's discussion of an "invisible hand." Leaving aside repeated misrepresentations of what Smith meant by that phrase, he was no fantasist and endorsed myriad public works and a range of what we would now call government regulations. Smith's quite sensible views on the matter derive from a simple point, one that most grown-ups acknowledge in their day-to-day lives: Our actions can have adverse consequences for others.
Government regulations can, of course, impose burdensome costs. But that's not the same as arguing that any regulation imposes a cost on individuals or businesses that otherwise would not exist. As the economist Dean Baker explains, if I dump toxic sludge onto your lawn and a law requires me to clean it up, you can argue that the "cost" of the regulation is simply the cost I incur to take care of the problem. There is, however, also a price that you pay for having toxic sludge on your lawn. Regulation, seen in this light, does not create new costs. Instead, it seeks to assign existing costs to the responsible parties by forcing them to clean up their messes, or by preventing those parties from creating the mess in the first place. Blanket condemnations of regulation, of the type that are de rigueur among Republicans these days, refuse to acknowledge this basic truth.
Republicans also decry the incredibly lengthy and unwieldy nature of federal rules, running as they do to thousands or tens of thousands of pages in some cases. Kevin Drum has pointed out that this is often not the result of liberals' insatiable desire to kill more trees. For example, when the so-called Volcker rule was first conceived -- the purpose of which was to limit federally insured banks' ability to engage in speculative investment -- it was pretty simple and straightforward. That was before the lobbyists set upon it like shape-shifting sorcerers. The result: a law whose preamble alone was 215 pages with nearly 400 footnotes. Drum notes that, in general, regulators prefer simple, clear rules. Industry, on the other hand, has an incentive to make those rules as unwieldy and exemption-ridden as possible. Simple rules are bad for business, Drum says, because they're "hard to evade." Of course, big business interests will publicly lament laws that run to thousands of pages. Privately, though, they're paying attorneys a lot of money to render those laws more obscure, complex, unmanageable and difficult to enforce than any regulator would ever want.
That regulation is fully justifiable when it mitigates the harm that some private actors might otherwise inflict on others ought to be the minimally agreed upon foundation for a larger conversation about the proper limits and potential pitfalls of specific kinds of government regulation. Instead of joining such a conversation, one of our two major parties offers up a fairy tale version of the economy. The simple idea that private interests, left to their own devices, have the potential to hurt others and undermine the public good is denounced as "socialistic" thinking and un-American. Wealthy private interests are heroic job creators that could and would build a nearly perfect society, if only they were left alone to work their job-creating magic. In that world, only the lazy and undeserving would fail to prosper. Such fantasies ought to have been finally discredited by the disastrous role that deregulation played in the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, the anti-regulatory zealots have doubled down on this delusion and spun a particularly inventive -- and typically fact-free -- tale about how the financial crisis was itself caused by the evils of government regulation (and Barney Frank), a zombie lie that just won't die.
This article originally appeared in the Independent Weekly of North Carolina.
Follow Jonathan Weiler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonweiler
Sen. Jeff Merkley: We Need a Strong Volcker Rule
Romney Admitted Stat About Obama Regulations Was A Lie, Keeps ...
Obama Has Written Fewer Regulations Than Bush
Obama has fewer but more costly regulations than Bush - Political ...
The Republicans (and many Democrats) don't care about We the People. Therefore, they don't want to regulate or tax products that impose a cost on society. They would rather maximize the profits for the corporations that (the Supreme Court would say "who") funded their campaigns. An intelligent citizen shouldn't believe their specious justifications for policies that work against the public good.
Notice that government is nowhere mentioned in this description. In fact, for most of the Middle Ages there really was no government in most places; there was only a bunch of strong men--dukes and earls and such--having their own way and fighting among themselves.
How did this arise? Well, at the end of the Roman Empire, there was not government at all. The countryside was overrun with bands of robbers and roving barbarians. The only to get through the year alive was to find the toughest guy in the neighborhood, someone with the resources to keep some armed men and fortify his manor house, seek his protection, and enter his service.
It still works that way in some places. Living in suburban Mogadishu, your best survival choice would be to find the toughest local faction leader, throw yourself at his feet, and beg his protection. If you were lucky, he would give it to you--for a price. Then you would find the real road to serfdom.
Who's money are you talking about?
The banksters? The multinational oil spill companies?
The nuclear trillion dollar disaster companies?
What we need is an un bought democratic republic.
Publicly finance elections with equal free prime time for all candidates on the ballot, and outlaw all contributions as the bribery they so clearly are.
We need simple clear, stable regulations, not banksters trading schemes, corrupted regulators agencies, special favors for big companies, and the all the other stuff the anti republic conservatives have created.
The dems simply want corporations to take reasonable care with the environment and the safety of their workers and the public.
The problem now is we have so many regulations on the books that no one can enforce them, and every one is in violation of some law or regulation.
Let us go to his example of the BP oil spill. Says in another story they are wanting to charge BP for criminal wrong doing, that means they didn't follow rules already in place. Why anyone thinks adding more regulations when not following current regulations would solve a problem is some that is totally void of all common sense and reality.
Democrats do NOT want to control behavior anything like the republicans do. Unless you think preventing discrimination is controlling behavior. I guess that would apply. But you don't find dems trying to control women's medical decisions, preventing people from marrying, making it illegal to speak Spanish (or other languages) in public, or preventing science teachers from teaching scientific facts.
Your first paragraph really just sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, and I suspect your actual beliefs are more reasonable.
I suppose that even Republicans and Libertarians would support a regulation that would prohibit me from walking into a bank with a Glock 9 and making a withdrawal from everybody's account. Then why would they oppose a regulation that prohibits a CEO from dumping his cleanup costs onto the community at large? That is also a withdrawal from everybody's account. It's robbery and it ought to be illegal.
Of course people don't feel like they're properly represented in DC. They're not. If we want our government back to make it work for us, not corporations, we need to remove the influence of money in government. The source of our problems is pretty clear. The solution is not so easy when money equals free speech.
Government was willing to axe 1,500 new jobs in South Carolina--a right to work state--to preserve far fewer union jobs in Washington state. If that is not overweaning central planning in action, I don't know what is.
Frankly, If I were a manufacturer held hostage by a union under that kind of regulation, rather than move to Texas, Alabama or South Carolina I would just pack up and move to Mexico or the Philippines.
You are so anti-union that you can't see the problems we would have without government regulations. My only problem is that they aren't enforced as well as they could be because of those very corporations' influence on our congress people.
I think you would love it, but I should warn you, all the money you will be saving in regulations you will need to spend on personal security because of the gangs and in keeping in the good graces of the big political leaders as the lack of big government means a fickle bureaucracy. O and hopefully you can stomach driving past children living in abject poverty.
Beyond that though, you will love it!
If govt agencies didn't create new rules and regulations, what would they be doing with their time? So they come up with new regs even if they aren't needed just to seem relevant and create more need for that agency.
Lastly, for those people that say they hate big corporations and the power they have over legislators, regualtions make corporations stronger. More regulations add costs to prevent new and smaller companies from entering that sector. Regulations just increase corporations power by limiting the players and passing these additional costs onto the consumer.