The cost of regulations: Economic tyranny
The big-government Obama administration's propensity for end runs around Congress exacerbates the unchecked growth of federal regulations that diminish both liberty and prosperity.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute ( cei.org) says that regulating rather than legislating pays for programs with private-sector resources rather than tax dollars. CEI says regulation is “off-budget taxation” — and business owners, workers and families ultimately foot the bill through higher taxes and/or lower wages.
CEI's new 20th-anniversary edition of its “Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State” estimates yearly compliance costs at $1.8 trillion — exceeding half of total federal expenditures for the first time, as well as Canada's or Mexico's GDP. And at $14,678 per family, red tape trails only housing among typical household costs.
Since 2009, the Obama administration “has recorded three of the four busiest years for regulatory activity in history.” And this White House is “the unchallenged champion” of “economically significant” new rules expected to cost $100 million-plus, the report says.
Let's call it what it is — another form of tyranny.
Genuine transparency, rigorous cost-benefit analyses, no more agency self-auditing, less delegation of power to bureaucrats and congressional votes on new rules could end regulations' prodigious proliferation, the report's author says.
Too bad this government-knows-best administration is so unlikely to push for any of those reforms.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Greensburg Tuesday takes