• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Want Stimulus? Reduce Regulation

    The President has publicly stated his intent to roll out a new expensive stimulus plan this fall.  That plan is expected to contain hundreds of billions in new debt obligations to you, the taxpayer.

    Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has a better idea.  He wrote a letter today to President Obama that identifies an effective means to stimulate growth.  Reduce regulations that are a hidden tax on all Americans and killing private enterprise.  Reducing the regulatory burden on the economy will spur economic growth.

    Speaker Boehner writes in a letter to President Obama today that private job creators are reporting that regulatory burdens are hindering new investment and job creation.

    Last year, on August 16, 2010, I wrote you about my concern that the Administration’s published regulatory agenda included a total of 191 planned new regulations, each of which had an estimated annual cost of $100 million or more, with some involving billions of dollars annually.  In my letter, I noted that at public forums, private sector job creators were citing this regulatory agenda as one of the primary impediments to job creation, especially for small businesses.

    The economy is experiencing low growth and high unemployment.  According to the Department of Commerce (via CNN), the annual growth rate for the economy was 1% in the second quarter of 2011.  This is following a first quarter of 0.4% growth.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected an almost $1.3 trillion deficit for next year. Add in the unemployment numbers over 9% for months and you have bleak economic outlook for this and next year.  This is not a good time to increase regulations – especially when the economy is in a need of a stimulating government policy like reducing regulations.

    James Gattuso and Diane Katz of The Heritage Foundation wrote a mid-year report on regulations titled “Red Tape Rising” about the crushing burden of regulations.  That report identifies a few avenues for economic growth by reducing regulations.  Maybe President Obama should put down his golf bag and read this important report.

    Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion. There were only six major deregulatory actions during that time, with reported savings of just $1.5 billion. This flood of red tape will undoubtedly persist, as hundreds of new regulations stemming from the vast Dodd–Frank financial regulation law, Obamacare, and the EPA’s global warming crusade advance through the regulatory pipeline—all of which further weakens an anemic economy and job creation, while undermining Americans’ fundamental freedoms.

    These regulations are one reason why the economy is in a funk.  Although the President has give lip service to the idea of reducing regulations, he has yet to scale back on the torrent of new regulations.

    If President Obama needs to find 20 regulations to kill that would spur economic growth, then one need to look further than the Diane Katz report that identifies the biggest job destroying culprits: Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare and the global warming crusade of the EPA.

    Boehner concluded in his letter with a request that the Obama Administration provide a list of new regulations “with a projected impact on our economy in excess of $1 billion.  Regulations on the economy are anti-stimulus and Speaker Boehner is right to focus on getting the Obama Administration to provide some transparency on new regulatory burdens that will further harm the economy.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to Want Stimulus? Reduce Regulation

    1. Obama only talks (it is cheap!) about reducing regulations, hoping that no one will report that he never actually does ease any strangling regulations that would have any significant effect.
      If he doesn't know which regulations should be killed/repealed to kick-start strong economic growth, he should start with the job destroying Dodd-Frank legislation, ObamaCare and the the EPA's, over the top, and unachievable greenhouse gas reduction mandates that defy the will of both the Congress and the American people.

    2. Bobbie says:

      Common sense solution. Different from his redundantly repetitive one.

      If reasoning is refused, call em' out on it. the president has to be held accountable for destroying methods that work, promoting his methods that ensure sacrifice and punishment as his methods continue to prove. Lets have a "change." Don't give into him! He's trying to drown out intellect!!

    3. Redfray says:

      There must be a problem with our elected representives and senators. If they know these new regulations are chocking our employment possibilities, why don't they cut the funding to these agencies? Remove there ability to enforce these regulations, and hire enough people to enforce them. In my opinion, these elected officials are not wanting to use our options to keep our government under control, because they want to keep the government in control of the people. Playing the blame game with each other is not the best brain power for solving problems with our government.
      We want to believe that experience is the best reason to reelect these people, but I want to know what type of experience we are looking for?

    4. Fedup says:

      Well-said, Redfray!

    5. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      Let's not say that a sluggish economy is a bad time to increase regulations or else their proponents and the bureaucracies will say that it's O.K. to increase them once the economy recovers. If these regulations, or even the threat of them, are keeping the economy from recovering, then they would dampen it once it did recover. As with taxes, businesses need to know that they will never be burdened with these regulations.

      How many of these regulations would pass muster if the people through their elected representatives had a say? As much as they may would like, Congress should not get a pass on them. They gave the bureaucracies this rule-making authority; they can just as easily take it away. We can't directly change the bureaucrats, but we can change Congress if they don't reign them into reality.

    6. Pat says:

      Yes, and you can keep your health insurance, too! /s

    7. Jason M says:

      Reducing regulations is great for the free market and capitalism. When the government regulates and interferes the economy gets more stagnant
      and there is not as much growth. This is really evident in other countries where the government rules the economic infrastructure. Less
      regulation is good, but it can't be to allow advantages to other businesses to manipulate government through lobbyists, and immoral dealings and
      so on. There is too many other bad things that happen when things are less regulated such as monopolies, price-fixing, and so on. What needs to
      happen is less regulation, but people need to have the proper values. Instead of individuals trying to rip off consumers in order to get rich,
      they should care enough to make quality products that people want in order to wealthy (think Apple). Less regulation will help drive competition
      and motivate individuals to do whatever they want. The morality of the individual is what everything depends on. Government control over
      everything is not the answer, but a wild wild west mentality is not the answer either.

    8. Maverick Smith says:

      Maverick,

      Nag, Nag, Nag…you all have a lot to complain about, but where were you when Bush put us in this mess?
      If it wasn't for Pres Barry O. we would be worst off…go figa! If you decide to vote for that Mitt guy, well you are
      just asking for it, you will have no jobs and no money to complain about…maybe that's what you all are look for. As they say if don't have it you won't miss it! Use some wisdom and get it right…you don't want to change president in mid-stream, go figa!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×