Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: One very small step’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 24 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The regulations imposed by Dodd-Frank are far less intrusive than the banking regulations that were in force from 1944-1981. This was a period that saw no banking crises, since the elimination of the regulations we have has several, culminating in the collapse of 2008.

By all means let's make regulations sensible, but don't go too far the other way.

ECR
Burke, VA

"The White House has taken one very small step toward regulatory sanity, but, contrary to the rhetoric in the White House's press release, there is no giant leap to celebrate."

At this point it might be worthwhile to review details of the report cited from the SBA.

"A caveat is necessary at this point. This current iteration of the study uses an index for the calculation of the economic regulations estimate that is wider and more encompassing than that previously used...it provides the study with a fuller estimate, thus partially remedying previous underestimates. A significant increase in the new estimate is due to the new, more encompassing methodology. To obtain an idea of how much of the increase in the estimate of economic regulations was due to the new methodology, the authors ran the new index on the 2005 data, in effect re-estimating the 2005 model...The economic regulations increased from $727 billion to $1.172 trillion, a $445 billion increase."

The administration now has more detailed, more accurate information and, unlike past administrations, they are beginning to chip away at those unnecessary and costly regulations. That seems like a huge leap to me.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

The problem with moving the effort to review and streamline regulation to Congress is twofold:

1. The US Congress has become an even bigger laughing stock of entrenched political paralysis, to the point of being mentioned specifically as a key reason behind S&P's downgrade of US Government's credit rating.

2. There are elements in the far right who unflinchingly advocate not just streamlining reform, but wholesale elimination of long standing regulatory agencies, like the EPA. The false choice is offered: clean air regulations, or jobs.

Instead of moving this effort to a highly politicized arena where Armageddon is likely to occur, maybe a re-invigorated effort within the executive branch can be encouraged, with a positive incentives to streamline regulations identified and promoted.

Maybe Congress should work on the basics of their responsibilities before taking on additional causes.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Government regulation is important, but regulations should be regularly reviewed for their effectiveness. The Obama Administration is involved in this process, and the Clinton Administration did the same thing in Al Gore's famous and well regarded initiative. It is a better approach than in not enforcing regulations at all. This approach leads to lots of problems, including the Dept. of Interior scandal in Denver, mining disasters, the Gulf oil spill, and the near meltdown of Wall Street that we saw in the prior Administration. A blanket condemnation of regulations is nothing more than an effort to feed the greed of a special interest group. And we all suffer when they get their way. Remember that.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Put all regulatory agencies directly under the jurisdiction of Congress so that our Representatives control what those agencies do. Congress legislates. It is the ONLY branch of government authorized to legislate. The President cannot legislate - legally. The court cannot legislate - legally. No agency of any branch of government can legislate - legally. That means that regulatory agencies have no authority to legislate. Their only authority is to enforce legislation passed by Congress.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Mike Richards,

Your last sentence is correct. "Their only authority is to enforce legislation passed by Congress". The executive branch is the enforcer which is (one reason) why these agencies report to the president. Giving congress enforcement powers would violate the separation of powers inherent in the constitution. Surely not a good idea.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "The false choice is offered: clean air regulations, or jobs."

It's not a false choice. The clean air regulatory scam has cost millions of jobs, and every new clean air regulation costs more.

At one point, when the Nation's air was in bad shape, regulation seemed like a good tradeoff -- a few jobs for a lot of clean air.

Now we've got cleaner air than any of us alive at the time could ever have hoped for [unsubstantiated bleating of a couple young, radical medicos notwithstanding], but the bloated clean air bureaucracy is still with us, is still dependent on taxpayer and industry largesse for THEIR jobs, and is still killing others' jobs.

The bureaucratic tail is wagging the dog. Producing more and more costly regulation, more and more job loss, less and less effective air cleanup.

When is enough be enough? The air is cleaner than it's ever been. There's no crisis, other than those manufactured by the bureaucracy.

Now seems like a good time for the EPA to declare victory and go home.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

I'm continually baffled by you conservatives and your campaign against clean air, water, and land. You conservatives are apparently not in favor of "conserving" anything. You want the EPA to pack up and go home? What then? Do you honestly believe an unregulated business community would voluntarily spend money cleaning up their messes? When did that ever happen in the whole of human history? Just baffling...

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Procuradorfiscal,

There may well be some loss of jobs due to regulation though regulation creates some (private) jobs in the compliance area.

Agreed that we have much cleaner air now than most of us remember from our youth. But to some degree this is analogous to crime. When your city was previously crime ridden and is now finally safe, you don't fire all of the police. You may pare the force down (slowly) but you recognize that malefactors will likely reappear once the incentives change.

In order to maintain the good you have achieved, you have to keep the incentives (monetary and criminal) at a level where most folks thinking of engaging in bad acts are dissuaded and those that proceed with bad acts have a reasonable likelihood of getting caught and punished.

justaguy
Out There in, WI

Our country seems to follow a cycle of under-regulation, crisis, over-regulation, deregulation to the point of under-regulation and back into another crisis. I'm in favor of finding the balance and I think regular review of the need and efficiency of current regulation is part of that balance.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

But you are missing the whole point. The objective of Barack Obama over the next year is to grossly overstate tax cuts, de-regulation etc.. to give the appearance that he is actually on the side business when in fact the exact opposite is the case. Very true, the 4 billion in regulation savings is nothing but a drop in the bucket but it is being touted as a huge deal by the Obama media and the White House. Wait until we hear the new economic deal on Sept 6 of this year from the great one himself. Expect the same sort of thing - over stating and using misleading data for political gain. There will be no new plan - just a re-hash of the same ole same ole. Another new government agency (wow that ought to do the trick) and another new borrowed stimulus (which just might be as successful as the last two). There will be some phony future promises of spending cuts thrown in just to dress it up a bit but essentially nothing new from Obama. Mitch McConnell was correct when he stated that NO REAL PROGRESS ECONOMICALLY is possible without a new president.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Removing Obama from office in 2012 - one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!!

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Forbes Magazine Rates SLC 9th most toxic city to live in.
We can be number one if we agree with the conservative approach.

IF we get rid of the EPA the pollution will go away too.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "You may pare the force down (slowly) but you recognize that malefactors will likely reappear once the incentives change."

Sounds good to me!

When do liberals think EPA should start paring down?

Problem is -- too many liberals and tree-huggers depend on a bloated, expensive, ineffective, inefficient, out-of-control bureaucracy for their own jobs.

Venal self-interest.

Liberals and tree huggers created a bureaucracy that is much more amenable to closing down mines, oil fields, dairies, farms, ranches, fishing, and recreation, than they are to "paring back" the enviro-victimization industry.

Primarily because that kills someone else's job, not their own.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The attack on the freedom of the American people is nowhere more visible than in the attack of the conservative commercial republicans to reduce and eliminate those pesky government regulations that cost business so much and are difficult to follow. Little matter that the regulation are of vitally importance to the freedom of people.

Regulation that are problems are those bought and created by one business in the competition between businesses. Regulations that protect people are good.

ECR
Burke, VA

Patriot said, "...new borrowed stimulus (which just might be as successful as the last two). Mitch McConnell was correct when he stated that without a new president."

The stimulus package included $237 billion in tax cuts. Almost $100 billion of that was targeted at lower and middle class households. But Republiucans hardly acknowledge that fact, primarily because they don't believe anything that helps lower and middle class households is good for anything. The remainder of the stimulus provided emplyment for over 2.0 million people. The employment was only temporary and that's exactly what it was intended to be - a stop gap while the economy recovered.

What Mitch McConnel intended to say, or at least the message he was sending to his supporters was "NO REAL PROGRESS ECONOMICALLY will happen until we get rid of this black president and we will not do anything to help him keep his office." And they've kept that promise.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Some needed regulations:

1. Funds for presidential vacations.
2. Amount of wars without congressional approval.
3. Spending
4. Taxes--set percentage for all or none at all.
5. Government involvement in education. Big scam.
6. Length of time politicians can serve. Goodbye Harry & Nancy.
7. Presidential candidates--full background checks given to citizens.

ECR
Burke, VA

worf suggested making the following changes, "Length of time politicians can serve. Goodbye Harry & Nancy."

So you would deny the right of the American voter to pick who they want to represent them? What country do you live in? Oh, I see, Texas.

Hellooo
Salt Lake City, UT

Asking the fox that controls the hen house to reduce control of the hens is not a very effective approach. And, the administration tepid results demonstrate this. The fact is new regulations put in place since this adminstration took office will cost much, much more than these tepid reductions. And, again this adminstrationmiss represents, "eliminating regulation". Changes in the way forms are filed may be operations improvement, but they are not regulation removement. Here is an idea legislate a number and page size limit for regulations for each agency in government. Then hold the highly paid administrators responsible for meeting the targets. And, lets not have any talk about it is not possible, the administration just forced through new cafe standards that will raise the price of cars by thousands, no choice for industry, then no choice should be allowed for the bureaucrats.

worf
Mcallen, TX

@ECR:

Many people in Neveda were pressured into voting for Harry because of his influence with unions. Not a peoples choice.

Political office is service to the country and not a career.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments