http://www.newsnet14.com/images/sociali ... e-shot.jpg
Under the radar last week was President Obama’s executive order for a wide review of government regulations, in hope of showing that bigger government isn’t bad news for economic growth and business.
Of course, the president didn’t word it that way. In his op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Obama wrote that he just wanted to “make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation.”
That sounds like such a great idea, doesn’t it?
First problem, don’t be bamboozled by wording. As cotton candy terminology can do, phrases like “avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation” are candy-coated sales pitches.
You know how that works. Say one thing – mean other? We did it often as kids. Remember, when your parents asked if you were going to Johnny’s house, where they’ve restricted you to go, and you replied, “No, I’m going to Dave’s house,” knowing full well that Johnny was going to be there, too?
Despite that Obama’s intentions sound so admirable, what the president really means is: “I’m putting together a study in hope you will believe that I’m tough on government regulations, when in fact I’ve expanded government regulations so much that I’m not sure it’s hurting the U.S. economy and job market.”
Second, not surprisingly, this federal government review is to be carried out by the federal government and excludes any independent (auditing) agencies; for example, like how major financial regulators are using most of 2010′s Dodd-Frank reforms for Wall Street and the banking industry.
But isn’t the federal government review or audit of itself a little like the Mexican drug mafias reviewing illegal border crossings?
Third, since when is more government regulations and bigger government business, which monopolizes and directs the flow of money to itself, good for small businesses on Main Street?
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
Actually, President Obama answered the question, if his policies were good for Main Street, in his WSJ op-ed piece, when he labeled government’s already-existing regulations as “unreasonable burdens on business – burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.”
