De-Regulation and Jobs

[clover]

You just can't make this shit up !!!

"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."

Government and industry studies support his view.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/gop-candidates-plans-on-economy-housing_n_1066949.html

[ragman]

You just can't make this shit up !!!

Yes you can and the Huffington Post does everyday.  

Jim’s thoughts on how government regulations affect business in general. These are general statements based on my experiences on both sides of the issue.  After a career of many years of dealing with these regs I retired and eventually became bored and went back to work enforcing these same laws.  I was one of only a very few with extensive experience on the business side of what I was dealing with and while I was often sort out for advice in my department it was usually met with rationalizations of why we just couldn’t do that. Mostly I understood that the real reason in a lot of cases was, do not take any chances and always cover your ass no matter what the costs borne by someone else.  

First let's all agree that some government regulation is necessary.  The problem lies with the nature of government.  Our elected officials make a regulation because of some failure which could very well be an aberration but they like the appearance of doing something to make sure this doesn't happen again to impress the voters they must face every election.  Often these regs produce unintended and negative consequences but once in place are very difficult to reverse.

To institute these regulations you need an administrative staff; you need people to write, interpret and implement the regulations. You also need enforcement staff. In other words you need people. (more government) Another thing that happens is that the administrators of this staff (let’s call it a Department) need a budget.  Immediately they start thinking of ways to justify an ever increasing budget. (Power) You never ever not spend all of your budget because if you fail to spend how can you justify next year’s budget increase.  In government there is little need to compile data on how effective these regulations may be.  On the contrary, you must always justify your existence so if anything happens that might give you an excuse to expand your reach and power….start writing new regs. If anything happens that puts you in bad light….sweep that under the rug or deal with it so that the blames goes elsewhere.

Now each member of this Department has rules and such and each one of them must justify their job.  Because the staff of this Department is hired by people who owe their jobs to the Politicians they must of course hire people whom the politicians suggest.  Therefore in many cases the people hired are not necessary the best suited for the job and they enter the job with an entitlement for that job.  In general they do not care about their job and frequently do not do a great job. That is not a problem for them however because the public employee unions plus their benefactors will protect them.

Well as time goes by the efficient good guys become disgusted with the inefficiency and pettiness of what they have to do every day in general.  It is not productive work so there is little satisfaction in doing it. They last for a few years and then move on.  The business people who are the recipients of these regulations attempt to comply while knowing that nothing is added to the quality of their business in general or the public good.  Their costs go up, their aggravation goes up and their contempt for incompetent government regulators increases. They start saying to themselves, is this really worth it.  They look at ways to skirt regulations and if they can they flee to areas of less regulation which results in less cost for them.  This could be a move to a different friendlier city, state or country.
 
This Mike is why I feel that if business was allowed to do what they do with minimal regs there would be more economic activity and therefore more jobs because they hire people with the expectation that hiring more people will make them more money. The general theme of what I presented above follows through I believe also to most facets of the government. All government wants is more government and not necessary results.

[clover]

You just can't make this shit up !!!

Yes you can and the Huffington Post does everyday.  

What Mr. Bartlett said was a direct quote.  It came from his lips.  It is not  a lie.

The same direct quote could be posted in FOX news....but the choose not to print anything that doesn't confirm the ideology of the Owner of that news network.  That's called censorship, and I support their right to do it.

To claim that the quote is "made up" is ludicrous at best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG8fBCQJ8XQ

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/

[ragman]

Mike,  Please for one moment use common sense.  You cannot raise the poor by taxing the rich. You may feel better but that will be the only result in more of the situation that we are now in. If you took every penny away from the rich the problem today would be just the same.  Tax the rich is a method to have a bogyman to blame for the present problems.  If it wasn't the rich history tells us they would find others.  Maybe the Jews or the Irish or the Blacks, just fill in the blank. Liberal thinkers are using Tax the Rich strategies to distract the people of the USA from their failed policy, period.  I'm not talking only of failed policy of the last few years. No this has been going on for many years with only a few interruptions.  This even though socialism has been proven a failure time after time.  Even the Socialist countries are trying to moderate and introduce some capitalism into their systems because it is the only thing that works over time. 

The problem is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem.  Get the spending under control and there will be plenty of money.   ?

[clover]

First of all...we were talking about deregulation..........you know....the main mantra of the nazis

Taxing the rich?
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/04/dems-jettison-millionaire-surtax-new-jobs-bill
So much for that talking point.

[ragman]

OK, Mike just for you back on track. 

Report: Obama Administration Added $9.5 Billion in Red Tape in July

Conservatives take aim at job-killing regulations


 By Paul Bedard
August 3, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Many House and Senate conservatives are reviving their battle against federal regulations, claiming that the president hasn't stopped issuing job-killing rules during the debt ceiling fight. "While Washington and Americans have been focused on the debt ceiling, the Obama administration has continued to roll out more crushing red tape," said a spokesperson for Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, who's been championing the regulation fight.

[clover]

Conservatives claims are unfounded.  Bruce Bartlett got it right and the Treasury report refutes their absurd claims that regulation has hampered growth.

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Is-Regulatory-Uncertainty-a-Major-Impediment-to-Job-Growth.aspx

We all know if Hannity says it......the sheep believe it!

[clover]

The problem is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem.  Get the spending under control and there will be plenty of money.   ?

But "spending 4 trillion to pay for Bush tax cuts isn't spending...is it 

The aide also noted that CBO has reported that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would increase the deficit by $4 trillion in the next 10 years.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/08/8705443-dems-rebuff-gop-tax-proposal-as-insane

[ragman]

Mike, get spending under control and then talk about tax hikes.  Congress is great at two things: increasing taxes and increasing spending.  Do not talk to me about more taxes until something serious is done about run a way spending by Numb Nuts.  The deficit comittee can not even agree to cut $1.5 Trillion out of $35T.   What does that come out to? (about 4%) That shows how serious they are.  

Let me put the number in a more understandable way. 

Total revenue $2.627 trillion (estimated) [1] Total expenditures $3.729 trillion (estimated) Deficit $1.101 trillion (estimated) the super comittee has to cut about $1.5 billion (yes that is right, billion) per year to meet their mandate.

Do you mean to tell me that they can not find $1.5 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget?  The is less than a percent.  It is not enough but it shows that any cuts at all are not acceptable to the Libs.  No they want more revenue, an endless need for revenue. 

[clover]

First of all the budget had a surplus in 2000
Then Bush passed the massive tax cuts that began to create debt from that date.

Tax cuts ARE spending.

[ragman]

Mike,  It's Bush Fault, it's Bush Fault.    Well fix it no matter who's to fault.  The fix will not be done without spending cuts and tax increases but the party in power will not cut spending.  The other day after the Repubs. offered up tax increases at the super committee the Dems. walked out.  They do not want a deal.  Their spending cuts do not happen till way out in the future and they want tax increases now.  A deal would take away their issues, so America will continue to suffer for a while.  To be precise: 436 Days, 23 Hours, 21 Minutes, 01 Seconds until Inauguration Day 2013 and the end of our long national nightmare.   


Sorry NO DEAL!   

[clover]

It just shows that tax cuts create deficits......and deficits are "spending".   

[ragman]

No decision on the Keystone Pipeline until after the 2012 election.  When faced with pissing off either the unions or the environmentalist, just vote present.  Hey 50,000 jobs don't mean anything.  They can wait.    Not to mention that the result would be less dependence on foreign oil.  Especially with the possibility of a new war in the Middle East. 

WASHINGTON—The State Department said Thursday it would postpone until after the 2012 election a decision on an oil pipeline that had raised a furor among environmental groups, a delay that angered the oil industry and unions that have pushed for the project.

The department, in a statement, said it would examine alternate routes for TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline to avoid an environmentally sensitive portion of Nebraska.

That would require an assessment of the new route's environmental impact, which "could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013," the department said.

The delay is a temporary victory for environmental groups, which have pressed the administration to deny the request by TransCanada to construct a pipeline from Alberta to Texas.

The oil and gas industry as well as unions have urged the administration to approve the project this year, arguing that it will create thousands of jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. The government of Canada also supports the project.

"The president is putting politics ahead of American jobs," said a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute. "The project has been under review for three years. This delay would be another year and a half. I don't know what would happen after that."

[clover]

Obviously 3 years wasn't enough time for the oil company to realize environmental concerns matter too.  We sure as hell wouldn't want to piss off big business.......let them put the pipeline right through your house....hey maybe through Yosemite or Glaciar Park......Jesus!  You'd think the management of that company would have thought this out and had an alternative in mind.

Sure am glad they're paying 7% while they think this over

[ragman]

That last post of yours is just bull shit.  A few days before Numb Nuts made the announcement the State Dept. said it didn't look like there was a problem.  That morning before the announcement the EPA said they have looked it over and that the company had made a few changes which made it OK with them. Now there story is well.....that wasn't a final determination.  Yeah right.   

The Obama decision to halt the Keystone Pipeline was done only for political reasons at the expense of tens of thousands of jobs and a source of energy which is badly needed.  The good of the USA was not considered.  Only the re-election of the worst President this country has ever had was considered.  If he let it go he would have lost some greens.  He will not lose the unions, no matter what he does.  They are already paid for.

This guy sucks, 3 years of study and everyone said from a technical point of view, it was a go.  Now from a political point of view? 

David L. Goldwyn, who until earlier this year had served as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, said in an interview aired over the weekend that Clinton would likely approve plans for a contentious pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast.

"I think that balancing jobs, energy security -- a country which has increased production potentially the size of Libya -- I think the case for a pipeline is overwhelming, and she will approve it," Goldwyn said, speaking to Platts Energy Week, an energy-themed television program.

The same problem this pipeline faces is going to be faced by every form of energy that comes along.  Oil, gas, nuclear, wind and solar.  Those ass holes will not be happy until we are living like cavemen.  Want me to find the articles on obstacles put in the way of wind and solar?  It won't be hard.