Comments about ‘Government regulators were too busy in 2012’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 28 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Burke, VA

I see the Heritage Foundation is wasting no time putting fear in the hearts of Americans with their hyperbolic descriptions of recent changes in regulation. But if this is the best they can come up with then we have it pretty soft here in the US.

Let's see, they start of with mortgage rules designed to protect consumers (an obvious no no for the Heritage Foundation) then they move right into listing a "proposed" regulation by the Department of Transportation, as if it is settled law. Then there is the favorite target - Obamacare - and a Labor Department rule that could be equally as detrimental to labor unions members as non-members, but of course it is made to sound totally pro-labor. Then there are complaints about trying to improve school lunch nutrition and the assertion that because the mayor of New York has put ridiculous rules of consumption in place that we are all subject to them.

Then there is the comment that mileage standards would raise car prices by hundreds of dollars in 2025. How much will capitalism raise our car prices by then? And finally, Obamacare relaxed rules about contraception in February. Look it up.

Hayden, ID

And liberals wonder why our government is unaffordable.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Our economy was far more regulated back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. The government determined the price of every airline ticket. Every box of freight that moved across the country was regulated. The government regulated how much interest banks could pay, and how much they could charge. Labor laws and anti-trust laws were much more stringent. Private citizens could not own gold. The list goes on, do a little research.

Salt Lake City, UT

The vast majority of regulations impacting our lives flow from statute, not from some "nanny" agenda as portrayed. Look at our own Utah legislature for an example. Between 700 to 900 bills will be filed this year for Utah's 2013 legislative session. Fortunately, many will not pass. But, of the bills that do pass, they'll be a significant impact on regulations that will need to be put in place or modified in order to implement statutory changes. Want to substantially cut down on regulations? Press your representatives to pass fewer laws.


The problem is regulations for which the benefit doesn't justify the cost. If a regulation "designed to protect consumers" actually ends up costing consumers and unnecessarily limits access to home mortgages, then it's a bad regulation and should be flagged and changed. The Heritage Foundation thinks these are bad regulations and explains why. "Yuk, it's from the Heritage Foundation blah blah" does nothing to explain why their assessment might be incorrect. And identifying stupid regulations from the past in no way justifies stupid regulations today.

I agree with UTAH Bill, but I would take it a step further: our legislators should be required to repeal one or two laws for every law they pass.


So why didn't DN include the source of the article, The Heritage Foundation?

Is DN having problems with its website? Troubling logging in and even accessing the site at times.

Burke, VA

"The rules run an astonishing 1,099 pages. The net result of this and similar rules? Fewer consumer mortgage lending options and increased costs."

Pops - Is this your idea of an explanation - because there is an excess of pages explaining the rules? What if there were too few pages and someone took advantage of the situation to misinterpret the regulation. Would you have a complaint about that? And what evidence does Heritage provide to back up their assertion that these regulations will create "(f)ewer consumer mortgage lending options and increased costs" other than their opinion? Would you prefer that we have no regulations and create another situation that brought about the economic downturn of 2008? Did you stop to think that might be what this regulation is addressing? Did some homeowners unnecessarily lose there homes because of the reckless and unethical behavior of mortgage companies and banks when it came to to foreclose and cut their losses? There is plenty of evidence to support that very fact. The fact is that the Heritage Foundation and the conservative class that funds them never saw a regulation it didn't hate. But the bad behavior of some unfortunately makes some regulations necessary.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

As usual the conservative businessmen will emphasize the actions of government only in terms of money and only when the effect is on business. And are willing to destroy the freedom and rights of the American people for riches and wealth.

Every law, policy, action and regulation that the government does in America is bought and paid for by private business.

Articles like this are simply part of the competition of the commercial forces in their efforts to control the government to their own benefit.

Tooele, UT

Re: "I see the Heritage Foundation is wasting no time putting fear in the hearts of Americans . . . ."

It's not the Heritage Foundation we fear -- it's the Obama regime and its clearly evident, well-documented agenda to convert America into a bankrupt, eurosocialist, nanny state, that identifies the successful among us as the enemy.

That and the regime's clueless liberal cheerleaders, bent on justifying its every step toward the brink, one that -- history shows -- will surely result in oppression, poverty, chaos, and ultimately, violence.

It's anti-freedom, anti-prosperity, anti-American liberals we fear, not those pointing out the emperor's unclothed status.

one old man
Ogden, UT

No, MM, we don't wonder. We know.

It started Reagan and continued through Bush, Bush, and their GOP cohorts.

Let's see. Unfunded wars. Unfunded Medicare Part D. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Subsidies for oil companies and other big businesses. Laws gutting what little regulation there was of Wall Street, Banks, and mortgage companies.

I could go on and on. But some folks have their minds set in concrete so it's a waste of time.

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Would the world come to an end if we got rid of one cabinet level department? Really, can America not function without the Department of Energy? Did we really need a Department of Homeland Security? Did the TSA have to be a government agency? Could the private airlines not provide their own security/ screening more efficiently and at a lower cost?
Over the last few generations most of the citizens in the western world have been sufficiently infantilized by their Governments so that they are convinced that Government should be responsible for what were formerly accepted as basic adult responsibilities (making their own healthcare, retirement arrangements for example).
So apparently now we aren't even capable of making our own decisions on credit applications or taking out a mortgage without the help of a friendly bureaucrat from CFPB. You know that new agency created by Dodd-Frank and conveniently within the Federal Reserve so there can be no congressional oversight of it's operations? The ratchet tightens.

Brer Rabbit
Spanish Fork, UT

Other regulations that will be very costly for taxpayers are the regulations making it much easier for illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and in some cases even those that commit a felony, after they have served the time.

1)"Prosecutorial Discretion," by the Department of Homeland Security which has decided not to deport most of the illegal aliens.

2)Amnesty for those wanting to attend college who have graduated from high school, or have a GED, and between the age of 18 and 32.

3)Utah's HB116 that goes into effect July 1,2013 which would allow illegal aliens that have ever lived in Utah to get a "permit" to work in Utah at any type of work that they qualify for. There is no limit to the number of permits that could be issued to employers or illegal immigrants. It is estimated that it will cost Utah taxpayers over 6 million $$$ to implement this regulation. HB116 cannot go into effect unless the Federal Government gives Utah a waiver, or July 1, 2013 if no waiver is given. We will have to wait for the 2013 Legislative session to see what they do about this.

American Fork, UT

I'm not buying the 'conscience denial' one. Individuals have a conscience. Churches and corporations are merely the reflection, and in some cases imposition, of someone elses' conscience. If churches are doing their jobs, people will act on their conscience accordingly.

Burke, VA

procuradorfiscal said, "It's not the Heritage Foundation we fear -- it's the Obama regime and its clearly evident, well-documented agenda to convert America into a bankrupt, eurosocialist, nanny state, that identifies the successful among us as the enemy."

So it's a slow day and I don't mind spending my last allowed comment to say that this statement is proof that my opening statement that "the Heritage Foundation is wasting no time putting fear in the hearts of Americans with their hyperbolic descriptions of recent changes in regulation" is obviously true. Thank you for providing the evidence in print. Happy New Year!

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Diane Katz is research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation ---

Only one-sided AM hate radio sources "The Heritage Foundation".

Has the DN as a "legitimate" newspaper stooped to publishing this known Lobbying bias?
Will the DN start publishing Liberal Only sources to maintain being "fair and balanced" - ironically also the farse of FauxNews

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Seriously -- What's next?

The Deseret News sourcing "The Blaze"

procuradorfiscal -- "It's not the Heritage Foundation we fear -- it's the Obama regime and its clearly evident, well-documented agenda to convert America into a bankrupt, eurosocialist, nanny state, that identifies the successful among us as the enemy."

Dude, climb back into your bunker.
Y2K came and went,
The Mayans were wrong,
and so is Warren Jeffs.

If you feel that scared and paranoid, Our world would be better off with you in an underground bunker after all.

Ogden, UT

"it's the Obama regime and its clearly evident, well-documented agenda to convert America into a bankrupt, eurosocialist, nanny state, that identifies the successful among us as the enemy."

OK, time for an equally ridiculous liberal rant: the conservatives' well-documented agenda to convert America into a xenophobic, money-worshiping society ruled by trust-fund babies who enjoy seeing people living on the streets because they can feel smug in their material comfort, who fully endorse social Darwinism, who are willing to go into national debt for war but not for helping their fellow man, and who view size restrictions on soda pop as evil government meddling, but want government to prohibit marriage rights for a segment of the population.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

It used to be that liberals talked only about the benefits of regulations and made no mention of costs. That’s how we become so over regulated by the 1970’s. Then along came Reagan…

Now conservatives talk only about the costs (which is why they hate all regulations) and make no mention of the benefits. Or if they do, it usually takes the form of “… while the benefits are questionable.”

Yes, I often question why my lungs prefer clean air.

And now here we are in the 21st century with two political parties that seem incapable of seeing the other side of the coin (the truth the other side is myopically focused on) on almost any issue, and are painfully ignorant of why the American people continue to elect divided government.

Most people get that each side has part of the truth, and if they would only stop the partisan nonsense and start working with each other, on this issue for example we would get much more sensible regulations and may even get rid of some obsolete ones.

Casa Grande, AZ

In Sunday School they told me rules were like the string of a kite. They don't keep the kite down, they keep it up.

Many have faith that businessmen will do the right thing ALL the time if we just let them but the fact is they don't. If men were angles we'd have no need of governments or it's rules. But they aren't.

Nobody is forcing you to live here. Buck up buttercup, it'll be alright.

Salt Lake City, Utah

The hyperbole and lack of facts when discussing New York's soda rules are proof enough of he lack of integrity of the authors of this article. Nothing they say is worth the space it took them to say it.

to comment

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