OK, that headline reflects one of the most common right-wing complaints against the Obama administration. (See Bill O’Reilly’s bullet point on Monday: “Increased federal regulations: Cutting into profits and causing banks to hoard, not lend money.”)
That’s the right-wing argument, but it’s also the premise of some news reporting. Take this lead in today‘s USA Today:
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s effort to roll back costly regulations that are not needed could save more than $10 billion over five years, but critics say that’s a drop in the bucket.
That’s a lot to pack into one sentence: Regulations are costly and unnecessary, and the only critics worth mentioning are the ones who say there should be more cuts.
In reality, there are plenty of critics who warn that cutting regulations can be dangerous to public safety and a giveaway to corporate interests. (See the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.) And as Rena Steinzor of the Center for Progressive Reform points out, while corporations are always going to want the government to do them more favors, there are real issues of concern about what we know so far:
In some instances, though, the changes, if done as planned, would have real-life negative consequences: The planned axing of “clearance testing” under EPA’s renovation, repair and painting rule will save money, yes, but run the risk of leaving lead dust behind to poison children when they move back into renovated buildings.
Totally unnecessary, in other words.
not quite fair and sure not accurate. There was no axing of clearance testing. It was an EPA proposal that voilated the law. This type of yellow jounalism make me sick.
DT
This is the almost impossible task of liberals, progressives and socialists.
The government regulation works just fine most of the time. We daily benefit from government regulation, but it’s so commonplace that it becomes invisible. We’ve never lived in a world without it and so we can’t imagine how horrifying society would be without government regulation.
Try to imagine a world where your next drink of water or bite of food might kill you, where your medications might have horrible side effects that aren’t stated or might not even be what you think they are, where corporations could dump sewage into your backyard. People have lived in such a world in the past and some in other countries still live in such a world.
It’s easier to just complain. It’s easier to point out the minority of exceptions where regulation fails. What many conservatives don’t understand is that, yes, if you elect people who say government doesn’t work then of course they will make sure government doesn’t work. One thing conservatives are good at is being bad at government, just like they promise.
Anyone who thinks government can’t work should look at the example of the sewer socialists who cleaned up both corruption and pollution. They created some of the most well run cities that the US has ever seen. The sewer socialists even worked with small businesses in their regulating to ensure a free market. If you’re in favor of free markets, then whatever you do don’t vote for those who falsely speechify about free markets.
Ignore the right-wing complainers. America wasn’t built on the nagging of naysayers. America was built on the confident aspirations of optimists and the clear-eyed plans of visionaries. America wasn’t built on hate and fear. It isn’t patriotic to hate your democratic government.
Who’s afraid of democracy?
Well said Benjamin! Whenever those on the Right protest regulations by “big gov’t” they need only look to how so-called big gov’t came into being. It was by the total malfeasance of “big biz”. It was because they can’t be trusted to take out the garbage. They brought this country to its knees, giving it the great depression. They are doing it again and the Right is paving their way. They won’t be jumping out of windows this time either as they have figured out how to raid the people’s money with bailouts. Government’s job IS to regulate and NOT to join forces with business…they call that fascism, don’t they?
Ben…..Your premise is so off base.You say government does certain things(as if the private sector cant do it better)and because we have accepted that as adequate ,we should feel fine with expanding it massively.Obama care will bring in 425 new regulations all by itself.And also you confuse regulations with the law.There are laws concerning safe drinking water, safe pharmaceuticals etc….Rule of thumb is regulations usually deal with money changing hands.In Philadelphia the AHA just won a case against the fed and it is now “regulated”that all curbs be re cut with rubber mats for the blind and a standard for wheel chairs….whether it is needed or not!So on my street they did 21.Oh i forgot to mention most of those curbs were redone in the past 10 years.and no there are no handicapped people that i know of.This to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.It will take years.Penn dot believes it is a waste.The construction companies know it is.And we who live here also know it.Yesterday i saw a blind man in town.I watched him walk over three curbs never once touching the Mat.That is a regulation at work.Not a law mind you.Obama LOVES regulations.They empower him.Ask any business owner how regulations have effected them.
The paradigm is shifting from conservative versus liberal to corporations versus democracy.
FROM OMB WATCH
July 27, 2011
Top Story
Studies Show Regulation Protects Health and Safety, Encourages Job Creation
Three recently published studies discuss the relationship between regulations and economic development. One study focuses on the job-creation potential of an individual environmental rule, and another touts the economic benefits of clean energy investments. The third study debunks a widely quoted but inaccurate report on the economic costs of regulations. All three reinforce an argument that public interest advocates have made for decades: government standards and public investments in clean energy protect health and safety and encourage job creation.
FROM OMB WATCH
Regulation a Boon for the Economy, Reports Show
Posted on March 8, 2011
Amid a tide of Republican complaints over regulations’ impact on economic growth, two new government reports show that the economic benefits of rules outstrip compliance costs by billions of dollars every year.
An annual report released March 1 by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) finds that the annual benefits of major rules finalized in fiscal years 2001 through 2010 ranged from $136 billion to $651 billion, while compliance costs amounted to somewhere between $44 billion and $62 billion per year.
OMB prepares the report by aggregating agencies’ cost-benefit analyses â┚¬“ notoriously inaccurate tools that ignore benefits that don’t have easily attachable price tags, such as environmental preservation, and awkwardly account for others whose values surpass mere economics, such as lives saved and injuries or illnesses avoided. Cost-benefit analyses also typically misrepresent compliance costs by assuming a static business model and ignoring innovations that allow regulated entities to operate more efficiently while complying with government requirements.
While the specific numbers and vast dollar ranges presented in the OMB report are imperfect, the report highlights the value of regulation and undermines the notion that government standards that impose requirements on businesses and other entities hurt the economy.
Among the beneficial rules contributing to the lopsided ledger are several U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality standards. “It should be clear that the rules with the highest benefits and the highest costs, by far, come from the Environmental Protection Agency and in particular its Office of Air,” the report states. “More specifically, EPA rules account for 60 to 85 percent of the monetized benefits and 47 to 54 percent of the monetized costs.”
EPA’s effort to reduce human exposure to fine particulate matter is perhaps the most economically significant, according to the report. The agency’s Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation rule generates benefits between $19 billion and $167 billion per year while imposing compliance costs of $7.3 billion per year, the report says.
The monetary benefits of environmental, health, and safety regulations often stem from health care cost savings, increases in worker productivity, and lives saved. When preparing a cost-benefit analysis, agencies assign a value, typically between $5 million and $10 million, to a human life.
The OMB report is the draft version of the 14th annual Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations. A final version of the report is expected later in 2011.
EPA released a report March 1 that draws similar conclusions. The agency found that rules written under the Clean Air Act yielded significant annual benefits. In 2010, those benefits totaled approximately $1.3 trillion; compliance costs that year were approximately $53 billion. The value of annual benefits could reach an estimated $2 trillion in 2020, the report says. Specifically, the report examines rules written as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. It compares current and projected conditions against a baseline that assumes only 1970s Clean Air Act controls to be in effect.
“In 2010 alone, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than: 160,000 cases of premature mortality; 130,000 heart attacks; 13 million lost work days; 1.7 million asthma attacks,” EPA says. “These benefits lead to a more productive workforce, and enable consumers and businesses to spend less on health care â┚¬“ all of which help strengthen the economy.”
Clean air advocates are holding up the EPA report as proof that the agency serves the public’s best interest and that its detractors are misguided. “By limiting our exposure to air pollution, the Clean Air Act has not only saved lives but also vastly reduced cases of heart attacks, asthma attacks, bronchitis and other illnesses, thus cutting our medical bills â┚¬“ a huge drag on the economy,” John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “The study also exposes big industry’s decades-long habit of crying wolf whenever the government has sought to strengthen health protections.”
The report comes on the heels of an agency white paper showing that EPA clean air standards have created new jobs, particularly in the environmental technologies industry.
Despite the evidence, Congress continues to consider options restricting EPA’s ability to protect the public under the Clean Air Act. The House-passed spending bill that would have funded the government for the remainder of the fiscal year contains at least 80 non-budget policy riders, many of which target the EPA’s regulatory authority. The bill would prohibit the EPA from spending money to work on standards that would cut mercury pollution from cement kilns and set new limits on particulate matter. The bill would also forbid the agency from curbing climate-altering carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. The bill has not passed in the Senate.
Corporate Crime
Russel Mokhiber, editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, estimates that white collar crime costs the nation’s businesses and individuals at least $100 billion EACH YEAR. (A sum incidentally that is more than 10 times greater then the combined total from larcenies, robberies, burglaries, and auto thefts committed by individuals.) If you count other corporate underhandedness, such as monopolistic price fixing and the sale of faulty goods, the price tag jumps about $200 billion more. And the Justice Department estimates that â┚¬Ã…“taxpayers lose $10 to $20 billion when corporations violate federal regulations.â┚¬Ã‚ Corporate Crime is so commonplace according to Mokhiber, that roughly two thirds of the country’s 500 largest companies were involved in some form of illegal behavior over a 10-year period. Despite such lawlessness, the white-collar detectives at the FBI do not track corporate crime regularly. â┚¬Ã…“The government can tell the public whether burglary is up or down in Los Angeles for any given month, but it cannot say the same about insider trading, midnight dumping, consumer defrauding, or illegal polluting.â┚¬Ã‚ (Dollars & Sense – Nov. 1989)
Externalized Corporate Costs Borne by Society
Ralph Estes is a professor of business administration at American University. He holds a doctorate in business administration from Indiana University. He wrote a book not too long ago called the Tyranny of the Bottom Line in which he estimates that the amount of annual costs that corporations and other businesses externalize and that must be borne by customers, employees, and society is $2,618 billion (TWO TRILLION SIX HUNDRED and EIGHTEEN BILLION DOLLARS – in 1991dollars and then adjusted to 1994 dollars.) This figure does NOT include special tax breaks corporations get or the direct subsidies that they receive. Compared to total corporate profits in the order of Five Hundred and Fifteen Billion Dollars, the estimated societal COSTS of corporations are five and one half times the amount of their benefits.
“We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling
in Citizens United, and Move to Amend our Constitution.”
Sign the Petition: http://movetoamend.org/motion-to-amend
* * *
The Center for Media and Democracy (a Move to Amend founding partner) has obtained copies of more than
800 model bills approved by corporations through ALEC meetings, after one of the thousands of people with
access shared them, and a whistleblower provided a copy to the Center. They have analyzed and marked-up
those bills and made them available at ALEC Exposed.
About ALEC Exposed
An open letter from CMD’s Executive Director, Lisa Graves
In April 2011, some of the biggest corporations in the U.S. met behind closed doors
in Cincinnati about their wish lists for changing state laws. This exchange was part
of a series of corporate meetings nurtured and fueled by the Koch Industries family
fortune and other corporate funding.
At an extravagant hotel gilded just before the Great Depression, corporate executives
from the tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, State Farm Insurance, and other corporations
were joined by their “task force” co-chairs — all Republican state legislators — to
approve â┚¬Ã…“modelâ┚¬Ã‚ legislation. They jointly head task forces of what is called the â┚¬Ã…“American
Legislative Exchange Councilâ┚¬Ã‚ (ALEC).
There, as the Center for Media and Democracy has learned, these corporate-politician
committees secretly voted on bills to rewrite numerous state laws. According to the
documents we have posted to ALEC Exposed, corporations vote as equals with elected politicians on these bills.
These task forces target legal rules that reach into almost every area of American life: worker and consumer
rights, education, the rights of Americans injured or killed by corporations, taxes, health care, immigration, and
the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.
The Center obtained copies of more than 800 model bills approved by companies through ALEC meetings, after
one of the thousands of people with access shared them, and a whistleblower provided a copy to the Center.
Those bills, which the Center has analyzed and marked-up, are now available at ALEC Exposed.
The bills that ALEC corporate leaders, companies and politicians voted on this spring now head to a luxury hotel
in New Orleans’ French Quarter for ALEC’s national retreat on August 3rd. In New Orleans, Koch Industries —
through its chief lobbyist — and lobbyists of other global companies are slated for a â┚¬Ã…“joint board meetingâ┚¬Ã‚ with a
rookery of Republican legislators who are on ALEC’s public board. Before the bills are publicly introduced in state
legislatures by ALEC politicians or alumni in the governor’s offices, they will be cleansed of any reference to the
secret corporate voting or who really wrote them.
With CMD’s publication of the bills, the public can now pierce through some of the subterfuge about ALEC, and
see beyond the names of the bills to what the bills really do, alongside the names of corporations that lead or
have helped lead ALEC’s agenda and accompanied by analysis to help decode the bills.
Many of the bills have obvious financial benefits for corporations but little or no direct benefit to the constituents
that a particular legislator was elected to represent. Still, it may be tempting to dismiss ALEC as merely
institutionalizing business as usual for lobbyists, except that ALEC’s tax-free donations are linked to it not spending
a substantial amount of time on lobbying to change the law. ALEC has publicly claimed its â┚¬Ã…“unparalleledâ┚¬Ã‚ success
in terms of the number of model bills introduced and enacted. But seeing the text of the bills helps reveal the
actual language of legal changes ALEC corporations desire, beyond what can be known by the PR in their titles.
ALEC says it has created a â┚¬Ã…“uniqueâ┚¬Ã‚ partnership between corporations and politicians. And it has.
It is a worrisome marriage of corporations and politicians, which seems to normalize a kind of corruption of the
legislative process — of the democratic process–in a nation of free people where the government is supposed
to be of, by, and for the people, not the corporations.
The full sweep of the bills and their implications for America’s future, the corporate voting, and the extent of the
corporate subsidy of ALEC’s legislation laundering all raise substantial questions. These questions should
concern all Americans. They go to the heart of the health of our democracy and the direction of our country.
When politicians — no matter their party — put corporate profits above the real needs of the people who elected
them, something has gone very awry.
As President Teddy Roosevelt observed in response to corporate money corrupting the democratic process a
century ago, “The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the
servant and not the master of the commonwealth . . . . The citizens of the United States must effectively control
the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.”
ALEC anointed the billionaire Koch Brothers as two of the first few recipients of its â┚¬Ã…“Adam Smith Free Enterprise
Award.â┚¬Ã‚ Smith argued that self-interest promoted more good in society than those who intend to do good.
“Greed is good!” is how Oliver Stone translated this concept to fiction on screen.
On that score, perhaps, the award was apt, except that ALEC apparently ignores Smith’s caution that bills and
regulations from business must be viewed with the deepest skepticism. In his book, ”Wealth of Nations”, Smith
urged that any law proposed by businessmen â┚¬Ã…“ought always to be listened to with great precaution . . . It comes
from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an
interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both
deceived and oppressed it.”
One need not look far in the ALEC bills to find reasons to be deeply concerned and skeptical.Take a look for yourself.
–Lisa Graves, Director, Center for Media and Democracy
(and Move to Amend Executive Committee Member)
â┚¬Ã…“Ignore the right-wing complainers. America wasn’t built on the nagging of naysayers. America was built on the confident aspirations of optimists and the clear-eyed plans of visionaries. America wasn’t built on hate and fear. It isn’t patriotic to hate your democratic government.â┚¬Ã‚Â
Ben, dissent is patriotic. Speaking out against your government when it oversteps its boundaries is also patriotic. Pointing out the glaring problems inherent in our government is also patriotic. Shutting up and mindlessly obeying your government isn’t patriotic; it’s fascism!
As for regulations, if you honestly think corporations want â┚¬Ã…“deregulation,â┚¬Ã‚ think again. Overall regulation has been increasing, not decreasing: http://cei.org/issue-analysis/ten-thousand-commandments-2011
Corporations actually lobby for more regulation in order to tilt the playing field in their favor, hurt smaller businesses, and create barrier-to-entries for new businesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7XpUEIfUz8
Great quote from Adam Smith! Michael bemoans a curb that his all important eyes have yet to see a handicapped person use. I on the other hand used to walk through thick clouds of emissions from Hooker Chemical (now OXY) in Niagara Falls. They were my neighbor. You might remember them as the creator’s of Love Canal. I deeply appreciate the regulations that made them somewhat shape up!
Just having a healthier population in general makes for a more productive society, not that how hard one works is the only measure of worth. Those people who died from cancer at Love Canal might have been great leaders or they might have been fun loving, gregarious, sweet, work- a- day people. I’m sure either would have fine for their families.
Thank you, Larry, for your lengthy contribution. Valuable information. I will look into this further.
Interestingly, the Move to Amend home page is marked “Page Not Found,” despite it being there. Don’t be fooled by that. You can still sign the petition.
Oh yes, over regulation and not needed regulation as my PA Senator Toomey (R) – what else – puts it, is an awful thing.
Let’s briefly time travel back to 1911. Was it regulation that cased the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory fire and the hideous deaths of 146 people because exits were locked. (An early version of the modern “security” scam)
Move forward a few decades (1936) Please open this little vignette of life in a car factory (the heat and noise one must imagine) but how many limbs were lopped off or crushed by too much regulation.
http://www.dump.com/2011/07/15/fascinating-1936-footage-of-car-assembly-line-video/
And now to the present. Was it too much regulation that caused illness and some deaths from improperly inspected food and enabled the Chinese to sell adulterated baby food to us? And caused the death of coal miners by negligent and uncaring operators and destruction of streams and people’s lives by mountain top removal?
All that nasty regulation of the insurance, banks and other financial institutions must have caused our current economic situation (while those persons and corporations responsible rake in billions in rewards).
The reactionaries and Libertarians have been screeching about “too much regulation” for some time now–it never fails to get some young cub reporter vexed about which way to lean (“Both sides present good arguments; gee, who should I condemn?”) when the crazy charges and outlandish lies are thrown about, damning the regulatory mechanisms put in place to help save and protect us from criminal outliers and Corporate money-whore lunatics. Do things always go 100%? No, of course not; it can’t and never will. But anything that even remotely seems to “punish” the yeoman businessman in his quest for honest profiteering gets the above-mentioned authoritarians chewing on their ties, muttering about damned Big Government strangling the initiative of good capitalists with the rope of regulation. It’s not going to stop anytime soon, but the whole idiotic game is wearing a bit thin at this point, especially with the Republicons going after <everybody, even the cops and firefighters and other righteous blue-collar types who regularly used to vote the sick bastards into office. It’s the end-game now; the Right is reaching right out and quashing their old stalwart mis-informed pals to get the Koch boys that extra few percentage points in tax breaks. It’s nice to hear former Republicon yeoman workers get enraged, finally, at the murderous perfidy of their former leaders.
I support regulations and I know they protect the public, the consumer and everyone who needs protection from those who will cheat, will steal, and will do their best to profit over the backs of their victims. Regulations have come into being to keep citizens safe, to keep animals safe and to do what is right. They keep our air clean, our water uncontaminated and make sure our land is protected from polluters. There are a lot of polluters. Republicans lie with their job killing regulations dogma. Republicans kill jobs and they are excellent at it.
I am not pleased at all with the Obama administration caving again and again to republicans and to corporations against regulations that are critical to keep financial ruin from happening again.
Larry Quite a long blog there.Reminds me of reading the rise and fall of the third reich.We had a Nazi speak a college once.He worshiped the book.Volumouse.I read it, and my answer is the same to that as what i would say to you….. The diatribe is still BULL BLEEP!
No one would say there should be an end to regulations(though “laws”cross into 99% of everything you noted)We(the right) are saying…..regulating is the strength government has to gain more power beyond any reasonable means or cause.Now honest men may argue individual regulations.But to say we are not regulated to death is not an honest assessment.You can throw all the over arching stats you want, and yet you need only go to any small businessman to see where the truth lies.In the end you will be trying to convince him how much your endless regulations are really helping him.His answer will be bullbleep too.
Vicki…….You are confusing laws with regulations.And if you think republicans are the job killers, you have not been paying attention………especially to the last couple years.
Tim……Laws are there to be enforced.Not to profit.Regulations are there to punish(I agree with you)And that means money.Follow the money tree.I worked in politics for a time and my family has been involved before came along.I can tell you there were times when some of the legislators within my earshot proposed “regulations”as a way to raise capital.It was and is commonplace.Simply a sideways play at taxation.Some regulatory agencies have done a good job.The laws that act as a redundancy have done a great job…when enforced.Lets agree that we do not need regulations for every act and every breathing moment.There are enough laws for that.
Since “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” covers Hitler’s defeat and the Nuremberg trials, it seems unlikely that any Nazi would worship that book.
It’s even more unlikely that micheal e. has read it.
Thanks Doug for that nasty little brained, mean spirited aside. Anyway Strange as it may seem this creep saw the book as an affirmation of the GREATNESS of these men.Don’t ask me to explain it.I remember he was enamored especially with Goering.Go figure
Take a look at Obama speaking about the coal industry.He said he would pass regulations that would in effect strangle the industry.Not laws…..regulations
I hate smoking.But have you seen the new regulatory packaging?They mean to destroy the industry ,while at the same time promising program funding on the back of smoking.As far as i know smoking is still legal right?As i said laws and regulations when working in tandem tend to be things people can live with.This president uses regulation to enact policy beyond the law.
Dear dear micheal. I’m sorry. You are right. My note was a little bit nasty, and I regret it. But the truth is I grow weary of your nonsense. Are you telling me now that you really have read that book? I’ve seen you make the most outrageous claims for yourself here, over and over again, but the thought of you reading that book — I don’t know, something in me just snapped. I have yet to see anything from you yet that would indicate you have read any book in your life, ever. Now maybe you have, I don’t know, and I can’t claim to have read everything you’ve posted here, but I am saying that there is no indication from anything I have ever seen of yours here that you have. Not the things you say, not the way you say them. I get the distinct impression that all you do is listen to Rush and Fox, then come here to tell us what they said. Why? You contribute nothing but ill will. I can’t even see that you read the blog entries. You dismiss them as liberal talking points etc., and if someone (I too have tried) attempts to reason with you you make the same irrational accusations. In fact you are frequently “little brained and mean spirited.” I frankly don’t understand why Peter allows your comments here.
At best your comments are irrelevant to the discussion. Now you want to talk about your favorite target, and smoking regulations? Start your own blog, why don’t you, rather than derailing this one? I promise to come and visit.
Well first Doug , yes i did read it.Im a history buff and you can usually find something of that nature in my hand.I do listen to FOX though my time is very limited.I probably listen more to more liberal based news as that is what plays in the waiting room at the office……I also do listen to Rush (when i can)and find him fantastic.He is an articulate reinforcement to what i have known was true since my days (and before)of working for Clinton.Or maybe i should say i have always known it.Most of it is the commonest of common sense ,if you have the American DNA coursing through your blood.If you want to “remake” this country in some European model- probably not so much.
Now to your point …Why does Peter allow me here?My guess would be he accepts that i am the fly in the ointment,but is probably bored by little bobble heads nodding in unison.Or he probably thinks you little google geeks looking up endless so called facts that will counter any notion upon the face of the earth, will make short swift of any conservative constitutionalist who must be mired in the past.I really can only speculate.
Understand these articles are formulated to play to a very liberal base.They touch on what they need to touch on to build their case.I instantly see what they are ignoring because as a conservative i see things utterly differently.Little like talking to a room full of martians.To ask me to be restricted only to the template that these lib writers have used is really not fair.That would allow them to set the rules to every argument.That is the way liberalism usually plays.We on the right simply are not playing that game.I will take your argument seriously though and try not to stray too far.
One thing got to me.That i “contribute nothing but ill will”.Sorry bout that impression.That is not my goal.I would say i wish you all the best.I wish you could shake free of this dibilitating mindset that is liberalism today.And with full blooded individualism and charity for others rise up to the challenge and live a full life.
We on the right are not naysayers crying in our soup.We are full of hope and raring to go.We hope to start in about 15 months to tear down these walls that separate us.Endless endless regulations will not be a part of our platform.Lack of regulation did not cause this debacle.Lack of enforcement did contribute.Regulation is your conduit to power.You insult our intelligence when you feign it is all about helping people.
Now did I wrap that up by getting back on target? :)
Something struck me Doug.You call my points irrational and to be frank stupid.They indicate to you that i am illiterate.Yet you say i mirror what Rush says.That would indicate that is how you see him.By extension That would indicate that is how you see his audience .You marginalize yourself into a very small elitist corner partner.
Hey michael. Thanks for your relatively sober response. You really didn’t get back on topic though, I’m afraid. I could see you trying for a bit there, but then you reverted to your usual unfounded accusations and paranoid generalizations about who liberals are and the usual Rush trash talk. (He is a canny entertainer who plays people’s fears and greed in the name of common sense, but he is a poor excuse for a news source.) I will say once more, this blog is not about you or me or Rush. It is not about what constitutes liberalism, conservativism, socialism, or why you think our president is an idiot. That’s a different conversation, and I wish you would find a different place to pursue it. I tire of you (and sometimes others) who want to treat it like your own personal platform for venting your spleen. I guess it’s better than becoming an ax murderer, but even generally reading around you it gets old. Once more, the internet is a wide open space, and you appear to have a lot to get off your chest. Please, if you can’t find a therapist who will listen, just start your own blog where you can choose your own topic and spout your own version of the world. Attract your own bobble heads or ditto heads or whoever else you want to join you. There must be more people like you who want to pretend to be history buffs who don’t care about facts. Together you can insult, tear down and demean people to your hearts’ content. Why do it here? Peter has a fine blog that he’s developed, and I think it’s a shame to clutter it up with nonsensical polemics on hate and greed and people’s “real” motives for saying what they think. You seem intent on making people who are interested in truth look like a sad little cult or something. Why? What purpose does that serve beyond making you feel smug? “Elitist,” you call us, as if that kind of wraps things up for you. You and Rush might find that an amusing and effective way to dismiss people, but it doesn’t mean anything outside your own fictional inbred view of the world.
However, if you continue to show up here, I will do my best to ignore you, as graciously as possible, as is frequently advised. Have a good life, my friend.
I am sorry that again you revert to ignoring me ,or other people who don’t see your version of the truth.I am glad Peter has not fallen into that trap .Again classic liberalism. Also I notice you attribute a lot of non complimentary terminology to me.Sorry you feel that way.To you i would simply say we don’t agree.
The reason we have such horrible leadership is because people like me(or you) allowed themselves to be silenced.
This week the Black congressional caucus (a racist group) said tea party members want to lynch blacks.They are attempting to silence the tea party.Expect the left to attempt to try to force Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the healthcare debate,again “silencing” him.This sad version of shunning is part and parcel of leftist methods and procedure.You are practicing it here with a velvet voice but the venom is slipping out of the side of your mouth.We may not agree but we can at least listen to each other.Do not fear hearing different ideas.This is not about being stubborn and clinging to beliefs or winning or loosing debates.I am a conservative but i would probably be more in line with the left on things like gay marriage or abortion(not late term),any number of things.I listen ,and some things I agree with.You are closing down the listening part.In the end I believe the right will transcend you and simply move forward.Leave you to explain how everything getting better also has a down side.A down side you will exploit for political gain.But I hope you listen a bit.I will
Just reported today that job growth is at zero.First time since 1940s.Perry has resided over a 50% of all new jobs in US.Mitt Romney has a lifetime of “creating” jobs.And how is Obama’s Chicago homeland doing after years under his tutelage?How is Obama doing?DONT ASK.If you cant see the difference between the two theories of economics you are truly lost.
Regulations, taxes aren’t killing small business, owners say
Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
McClatchy reached out to owners of small businesses, many of them mom-and-pop operations, to find out whether they indeed were being choked by regulation, whether uncertainty over taxes affected their hiring plans and whether the health care overhaul was helping or hurting their business.
Their response was surprising.
None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html#ixzz1WoSgvM2p
Different job creation studies rank Massachusetts in the bottom four states during Mitt Romney’s administration. A study by the independent think tank MassINC ranked the state 49th in job creation from 2001-2007, ahead of only Michigan. And according to the U.S. Department of Labor, Massachusetts ranked 47th, ahead of only Michigan, Ohio, and Louisiana.
Michigan and Ohio, both located in the Rust Belt, faced heavy job losses due to the flight of manufacturing jobs from the Midwest. Louisiana, meanwhile, lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
During Romney’s period as governor, Massachusetts’ job growth was just 0.9 percent, well behind other high-wage, high-skill economies in New York (2.7), California (4.7), and North Carolina (7.6). The national average, meanwhile, was better than 5 percent.
Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, researched Romney’s job record and found that Massachusetts lagged on virtually every economic indicator during his time in office, as he told Reuters in 2008: â┚¬Ã…“As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney yearsâ┚¬Ã…“, he said. â┚¬Ã…“On every measure you’ve got, the state was a substantial under-performer.â┚¬Ã‚Â
—————-
Then there’s the company Romney ran called Bain Capitol that destroyed jobs to make money.
Here’s just one example:
In 1992, Mitt Romney was running Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper Co. (Ampad) for $5 million.
Over the next several years Romney’s firm bled the company dry. Hundreds of workers lost their jobs. Stockholders were left with worthless shares. Creditors and vendors were paid less than 50 cents on the dollar. While they were exploiting the company, Romney’s firm charged Ampad millions of dollars in “management fees.” In all, Romney and his investors reaped more than $100 million dollars from the deal.
——————
People want Thomas to recuse himself from the health care decision due to a massive conflict of interest caused by his wife’s activites working against the law.
Texas is responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s job creation since June 2009. Perry’s record is part of a long-term trend. Texas has done well in the jobs department for decades. “This point goes neglected,” says Bernard L. Weinstein, professor of business economics in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
“Yes, Texas has created more jobs than any other state” in the last two years. “But that’s been true since 1970. For the last 41 years Texas has added more jobs than any other state, and in most years, has led the nation in job creation,” Weinsteinsaid. “So Gov. Perry can claim that these jobs were created on his watch, but they were created on everybody else’s watch too.”
The San Antonio-Express News recently pointed out that past Texas governors have done well in terms of job creation, too. The state did even better when George W. Bush was governor; jobs went up 20.3 percent.
“A lot of what we’re doing is growing like we always grew,” Dick Lavine, senior fiscal analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin,”it’s a longer-term trend in Texas that’s just continuing.”
Perry’s supporters will say that people from other states have moved to Texas because of job opportunities. And that’s true for some. But a little more than half of the state’s population growth, 54 percent, was natural â┚¬” births and deaths â┚¬” from 2000 to 2009. The rest was split between domestic and international immigration, with 21.6 percent of the growth coming from people moving from other states and 23.7 percent coming from international migrants. That’s according to the Census Bureau and the Texas State Data Center.
“When you have more people, you generally have more jobs,” Howard Wial, an economist and fellow with The Brookings Institution, said.
The Texas economy has benefited from high fuel prices.
Crude oil prices were $66 to $72 per barrel in June 2009, but they’ve topped $110 this year (before declining to about $85 this week). “This has a direct impact on jobs in energy exploration, extraction, and energy support businesses and an indirect impact on job creation by boosting the wealth and incomes of many state residents,” Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution, said.
Texas didn’t experience the big housing bust.
Texas was largely spared from the major spike in housing prices that occurred in other states, followed by the bust that sent homeowners into foreclosure and left others owing more than their homes were worth. The state has tighter restrictions than other states on home equity loans and refinancing â┚¬” homeowners can only borrow on 80 percent of the home’s value. Elsewhere, subprime lenders were offering loans of up to 125 percent of home value. ” In the case of mortgages, Texas had stricter regulation than the nation as a whole.
Texas has benefited from an increase in government jobs, too.
Government was the largest industry in the state in 2010, as measured by a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It beat out mining, which was the state’s second largest industry.
In terms of the total number of jobs, as measured by BLS, government is the second largest sector, behind trade, transportation and utilities. Since June 2009, the state has added 31,100 government jobs. That’s nearly 10 percent of Texas’ job growth. The nation, meanwhile, has lost 523,000 government jobs in that time frame.
Texas, along with Mississippi, has the highest percentage of hourly workers at or below the minimum wage.
But, despite the job gains, Texas’ unemployment rate has gone up.
————–
data from factcheck.org