Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 05:20 PM
Original message
"Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation"

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation


Peter S. Goodman

First Posted: 01/18/11 10:21 AM Updated: 01/18/11 12:10 PM

Obama Regulation

Two years after inheriting the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, President Barack Obama has settled on an unhelpful new explanation for his failure to restore jobs: A surplus of suffocating regulations.

In an op-ed published in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, the president decries how regulations have sometimes "gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business -- burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs."

In the crudest sense, this is probably wise politics. Pandering to businesses in possession of campaign cash reinforces the advantages of Obama's incumbency in the run-up to next year's presidential election. By brazenly stealing a long-established Republican talking point -- how geeky Washington bureaucrats are squeezing the life out of American businesses -- Obama is speaking to the core distrust of government that prevails in many homes. He is also following through on his pledge to get along better with big business, following his recent summit with prominent chief executives at the White House.

But as a message fed into the policy process, one that helps shape the tone of public discourse, Obama's words are nothing short of a public disservice. Having failed to marshal an economic program sufficiently muscular to restore vigor to a still-lean economy, the president will not even talk straight about how we got here, instead adding confusion to the narrative that will surely embolden industries hoping to write rules in their favor.

It wasn't too many regulations that trashed the economy. It was not enough rules -- a deficit that owes in large part to the efforts of many of the people Obama has leaned on in putting together his economic policies.

Robert Rubin, who helped Obama during his transition and remains a conspicuous influence at his Treasury Department, persuaded President Bill Clinton to roll back regulations on derivatives, the complex investments at the center of the financial crisis of 2008. Rubin's protg, Larry Summers -- who recently left the White House, where he oversaw Obama's economic policy -- aided in that effort. Summers and Rubin both played key roles in dismantling the Depression-era walls between Wall Street trading and ordinary banking. These policies enabled a gambling mentality to capture Wall Street, perverting and rerouting the flows of money that are crucial to a healthy real economy.

More of an interesting read at..........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/obamas-bogus-e...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. "his failure to restore jobs: A surplus of suffocating regulations." In two years, TWO YEARS, Obama
has had an epiphany, like Saul on the road to Damascus, who after hearing the voice of money-lenders and seeing the light of Gold, has metamorphosed into St. Obama, the apostle for mammon worshipers, those high priests who occupy the seat of judgment in congress for their puppet masters, the corporatists, who own over 50% of our financial wealth and control all our multinational corporations.



It's really all about love of fellow man/woman and the Golden Rule central to every major religion OR worshiping mammon and the Rule of gold.

Of course that's just the not-so-humble opinion of a 75 year old Yellow Dog Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. oh well, the other side is worse...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. LOL
You are so funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. You tell that to a homeless person, or the unemployed. "Things could be worse". That will make
them feel so much better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yeah, it was too many regulations down here on the Gulf Coast that
caused the oil blow-out. Listen to Daley, he'll tell ya!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is very much misunderstood, I think
First of all, as another thread today details, Obama has been the most pro-regulation President in last 40 years:

Obama signs bill putting tobacco products under FDA oversight

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act

Banning antibiotics in livestock production

Food Safety bill

Appointed Elizabeth Warren to establish the consumer bureau

Elizabeth Warren Recruits Dodd-Frank Enforcers From 50 States

Enacted shareholder rules on executive pay

Fed's massive data release offers new insight into financial crisis

Panel Begins to Set Rules to Govern Financial System (Volcker Rule)


So let's read what the president really said in that op-ed. Did he say he wants less regulation on business as a principle? No, he said what he said about war: he's not opposed to war, he's opposed to DUMB wars. So let's take a look at the actual words. He starts by reinforcing the importance of reglations, and then says that there are many outdated ones, some of which have stifled innovation and job growth. He seeks to create a balance: keeping the smart, necessary rules that protect us and our economy; getting rid of the stupid ones:

From child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to our most recent strictures against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, we have, from time to time, embraced common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.

Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on businessburdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.

Over the past two years, the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance. And today, I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government.

This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.



Next, he says this new balancing will actually add new regulations that have been overlooked. And then he gives examples of dumb ones that are not necessary:

Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps: new safety rules for infant formula; procedures to stop preventable infections in hospitals; efforts to target chronic violators of workplace safety laws. But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.

For instance, the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month. (...)

We're also getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money. We're looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation. And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account forand reducethe burdens regulations may place on small businesses.

One important example of this overall approach is the fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks. When I took office, the country faced years of litigation and confusion because of conflicting rules set by Congress, federal regulators and states.

The EPA and the Department of Transportation worked with auto makers, labor unions, states like California, and environmental advocates this past spring to turn a tangle of rules into one aggressive new standard. It was a victory for car companies that wanted regulatory certainty; for consumers who will pay less at the pump; for our security, as we save 1.8 billion barrels of oil; and for the environment as we reduce pollution. Another example: Tomorrow the FDA will lay out a new effort to improve the process for approving medical devices, to keep patients safer while getting innovative and life-saving products to market faster.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604...


Imagine an institution that never looked to modernize (that is the word he uses) the rules on its books--rules dating back 40, 50 years and more. One can imagine that there is a lot of outmoded or superseded junk on the books. I agree that we need to keep a close eye on this process, and have a voice in it (it is promised in the article that it will be open and on-line). But I'm not concerned that this is some kind of wholesale attempt to "de-regulate" America and expose us to physical and economic harm.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paka Donating Member (228 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thank You, Thank You
Edited on Thu Jan-20-11 07:27 PM by Paka
Just like government is not the problem, but rather bad government and stupid regulation. And if it panders to stupid people to say things like that, so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Thanks for you links to other articles...Worth the Read!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. Predictable
was probably spoon fed this idea in that meeting of CEOs he had.

The last thing they were going to do was tell him the truth, which is that "free trade" is the major driver of our economic shriveling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC