It hurts! It hurts! Please hit it again!!!!!! I.e. a scholarly review of government regulatory policy

Recently Herman Cain drew fire for a comment about the black community. He said, “Black voters "have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view." I do not have any insight into the black community but Mr. Cain I believe you. You see I live in West Virginia, and I am a union member.  I worked with a man who was brilliant at work, did some amazing things and I as a newbie apprentice was extremely fortunate to learn from him, but when politics came up that was another story!  This gentleman would rail against open borders immigration, and over regulation, hated over taxation, strenuously resisted gun control and even insisted on a strong anti-crime position. Also Republicans hated the little guy. When it was pointed out that he supported the Republican position on every issue (with the exception of Iraq, which he adamantly opposed) the response would be some thinly veiled comparison between Bush and Hitler or Bush and Satan.

Like wise West Virginians are not socialists. I know this by observation and anecdotal experience but I sure as the Devil (Satan not Bush) cannot prove it based on the voting record of our beloved Senators Byrd and Rockefeller.  Sen. Byrd may be a legend in WV politics and served in the Senate for half a century but, save his support of the National Guard and the 167^th air base, nothing in his voting record for the last 10-15 years at least would have won him a Senate seat if his name was anything but Robert C Byrd. Likewise Sen. Rockefeller, who used to send my mother Christmas cards when she headed up the Jefferson County Dem committee, who says things like    There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It'd be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.  Of course we want the Senate to decide what news we can listen to, no problem there. More disturbingly is the reluctance to take on the EPA in any effectual way. Our state is largely dependant on coal for its economy, in fact 63% of WV jobs are coal related, and the best Sen. Rockefeller can do is support a temporary measure to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate green house gases for two years (i.e. through his reelection). Meanwhile even as the President goes about promoting his phony jobs bill the EPA is rewriting the stream buffer zone rules which his own administration admits will directly or indirectly cost 7,000 coal miners their jobs.

(ww.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2785775/posts)

I could go on indefinitely about the tyranny of the EPA, but it is but one example of the job killing liberty crushing regulatory dictatorial power of the current Governmental philosophy, all under the auspices of the hoax that is global warming. (some time I will do a whole post on that, in the mean time I recommend Climategate by Brain Sussman as the best of many works on the subject of the climate change hoax)  I could also go on to talk about the destruction of the government’s frequent regulatory wrecking ball like incursions to the financial and housing markets, or the choke hold the Obama care regulations will put on industry and business as a whole.

No one is suggesting unregulation, but without substantial easing of the over regulation our economy will stay bogged down in the quagmire of government red tape.  The important point is to learn what each of our candidates will do about it.

Herman Cain: The federal government has amassed incredible amounts of control through its ability to regulate everything from emissions to food to businesses. Certainly, some regulation is necessary to protect American consumers and taxpayers, but excessive regulation has driven up the price of the goods and services we want, need and desire.

According to the Heritage Foundation, burdensome regulations have increased at an alarming rate. In 2010 alone, Washington forced 43 major new regulations on us. The cost of complying with these additional measures is more than $26.5 billion, which according to Heritage, is “far more than any other year for which records are available.” Experts anticipate that with health care “deform,” financial regulatory “deform” and other liberal agenda items, next year’s regulatory costs will skyrocket farther.

We pay for regulations with every bite of food we eat, with every drop of gasoline we put in our cars and with every good or service we obtain. While we might not immediately recognize the impact of such drastic regulations, they are laced tightly in the cost of everything we buy. In fact, the Small Business Administration estimates that complying with regulation costs around $1.75 trillion annually, which is actually twice as much as all revenue from individual income taxes last year.

Alleviating the burdens of cumbersome regulation would be an immediate boost for our weakened economy. It would signal to businesses and investors that the government intends to maintain conditions that allow for them to thrive, not to bog them down with additional costs they must inevitably pass on to their consumers. No one is arguing for lead-based paint in toys for kids or unsafe food. We just want reasonable regulations that cut down on bureaucracy and help businesses succeed. And ultimately, the free market, aided in part by the watchful eyes of investors and consumers, will regulate itself.

http://www.hermancain.com/the-issues

Newt Gingrich: Remove obstacles to job creation imposed by destructive and ineffective regulations, programs and bureaucracies. Steps include: Repealing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which did nothing to prevent the financial crisis and is holding companies back from making new investments in the U.S; Repealing the Community Reinvestment Act, the abuse of which helped cause the financial crisis; Repealing the Dodd-Frank Law which is killing small independent banks, crippling loans to small businesses and crippling home sales; Breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, moving their smaller successors off government guarantees and into the free market; Replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency that works collaboratively with local government and industry to achieve better results; and Modernizing the Food and Drug Administration  to get lifesaving medicines and technologies to patients faster.

http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy

Newt’s ideas are sound and he has a pretty good record. While I would prefer the abolition of the EPA Newt’s replace idea takes us a big step in the right direction

Ron Paul:

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?

Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.

Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

 Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.

Most of my post has focused on the environmental regulation, but I’ve chosen to

Include this well written post from Rep Paul as it shows a very strong inclination and belief in free markets and a fear of what the government will do when it tries to “help”

Plus he takes a swipe at public education and I like always that!

Michelle Bachmann: The president could also turn back some of the 132 regulations put in place in the last two years, many of which will cost our economy $100 million or more,” the Minnesota 6th District congresswoman said in her own post-State of the Union speech.

A spokesman from Bachmann’s Washington office said the statistics come from a recent study from the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center.

In the study, author Susan Dudley wrote that during the first two years of Obama’s presidency, “the federal government issued 132 economically significant regulations (defined as having impacts of $100 million or more per year). That averages out to 66 major regulations per year, which is dramatically higher than the averages issued by President Clinton (47 per year) or President Bush (48 per year).”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-bachmann-targets-132-new-regulations-costing-billions-created-first-2-years-obama

Rep Bachmann’s voting record supports her statements whole heartedly.

Rick Parry: Rick Perry’s support for low taxes, reasonable regulations, a predictable civil litigation system and an educated workforce has produced a job climate consistently ranked the best in the nation. http://www.rickperry.org/issues/jobs/

Perry’s record in Texas is pretty darned good as well primarily shown in the amount of disapproval he rates from environmental groups and a good record of job creation

Rick Santorum: The first thing nearly every executive will tell you, from sole proprietors to CEOs of international conglomerates: the existing federal regulatory structure in untenable.  From the enactment of the boondoggle of ObamaCare to the CO₂ regulations of the EPA, President Obama has single-handedly placed weight after weight on our job market and economy as a whole - and Rick Santorum would immediately repeal the regulatory alphabet soup implemented by the Obama Administration.  This also means ensuring that government agencies stay within their intended framework, most notably the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that has diverted from its purpose of protecting the rights of workers to doing the political work of President Obama's staunches union allies. Furthermore, while legislation pending before Congress is a start, Rick Santorum believes we need to streamline the patent process to unclog the patent backlog and encourage innovation in America.  And likewise, to ensure America remains the global beacon of biotechnology, we must reform the transparency of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process so entrepreneurs and investors alike can have surety in the process.  Finally, Rick Santorum believes that each new federal law and reauthorization of existing laws should be simpler and limit the ability of federal agencies to expand upon the law through regulation

As a Senator Santorum’s record was very good on these issues and he now has released his ful economic plan which warrants a look. http://www.ricksantorum.com/news/2011/07/courage-fight-american-jobs

Mitt Romney: Candidate Romney wants lower taxes and less regulation, he says carbon is not a pollutant and the EPA has no authority to regulate it, Gov. Romney supported legislation regulating green house gases in Mass. The purpose of 310 CMR 7.29 is to control emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), mercury (Hg), carbon monoxide (CO),carbon dioxide (CO₂) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) (together “pollutants“) from affected facilities in Massachusetts. 310 CMR 7.29 accomplishes this by establishing output-based emission rates for NOx, SO₂ and CO₂ and establishing a cap on CO₂ and Hg emissions from affected facilities.

Further Romney-care buried Mass under the same crushing regulations as will Obama care. Of course states can do that constitutionally, the governor argues correctly but he still won’t admit they shouldn’t.

I’d like to link to the page on his website that details his ideas as I’ve tried to with the others, but I can’t get past the donations page, I don’t know if it’s a problem with my computer or his site.

Of the 8 candidates profiled all have good campaign positions on this issue and 6 have good voting records to support their positions. Herman Cain has no voting record but I see no reason to doubt his belief in the free market. Like on most issues Mitt Romney has “evolved” his position on regulation and in the end the question comes down to rather we believe Gov. Romney or Candidate Romney, and that makes me hesitant to fully endorse his regulatory position.

This may be the strongest issue for our candidates top to bottom, and any of them will give us hope that we can return to building our economy as soon as the Obama administration is swept away by an election tsunami in 2012.

Thanks for sticking with me through along post, until next time keep on the firing line!

.