Conservatives in this country are under the impression that they can tap into their adolescent rage, make a statement, and then it's reality. Take, for example, the one that states that "the president is destroying free enterprise." This comes from a general notion that the president and his fellow Democrats are over-regulating business.
Yet a recent article in Politico says otherwise.
Even though that’s not official policy, the administration has been increasingly frugal in issuing regulations, according to a POLITICO review of government data and more than two dozen interviews with current and former administration officials, lawmakers in both parties, business leaders and liberal activists. The analysis of the federal rule-making database shows Obama as of Tuesday had issued 1,004 final regulations since arriving in office. That’s fewer than his two immediate predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. This year, Obama is also on pace to put out the fewest “economically significant” regulations of any year in his presidency.
Oh really? How exactly does this happen?
Republicans “just assert stuff and the facts have never encumbered them. I think there’s a sense that Democrats are regulation-bound or regulation-minded and so the assertion sticks. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that,” said Harold Ickes, who served as deputy chief of staff to Clinton and then counted delegates for Hillary Clinton when she ran against Obama.
No shit.
Well, there goes another myth torpedoed.
10 comments:
Wow, that's impressive. Obama hasn't issued regulations as fast as his predecessors. Next you're going to tell me that Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative!
Number of regulations does not equal impact of regulations.
Of course you knew that.
Also from the article...
In classic Washington fashion, the administration’s slowdown of new rules is making liberals mad and winning Obama no credit from Republicans or the business community — especially not in an election year in which the over-regulator meme is so prevalent.
Overall, is this worse than accusing your opponent of committing a felony? Or can anything register on the hypocrisy meter when you take as much money from investment banks as the O does whilst criticizing Romney and Bain?
Here's another thought - it won't make it through M's filters, but for the sake of everyone else. Whoever said that Bush was a de-regulator? Maybe some lying political operatives, and certainly the progressives with their overweening desire to regulate every aspect of life. You see M you use Bush as though we thought he was a good President - which is really funny considering how much criticism you read about that Admin over at TSM. That's the problem with your unsubtle, two-track mind - if we aren't bent over the Democrat's couch, we must be giving service to Republicans. You can't conceive of a state affairs outside of that duality.
So let me be crystal clear here: Bush sucked and Obama sucks as much if not more. I just wish I could see your face contorting as the gears inside your head grind and spark trying to process that.
Overall, is this worse than accusing your opponent of committing a felony?
Do you think Mitt Romney committed a felony, juris?
No problem if you think both Obama and Bush suck for whatever reason. But to say that the president is destroying free enterprise with a mountain of new regulations that are stifling business is flat out wrong.
Do you think Mitt Romney committed a felony, juris?
I really don't know the specifics. If he did, why did this Administration not prosecute him (assuming it was a federal crime)?
But let's just hold for a second. What is one of the foundational principles of justice in this country - that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Prosecutors do not make random accusations in the press - they take the evidence they have to make a case in court (first in a grand jury and then at trial). To accuse someone of a crime with no evidence is slander/libel - with the great exception of public persons. Citizen Obama could not accuse citizen Romney in public without the possibility of being sued; but President Obama can say pretty much anything true or not about Candidate Romney. Free speech isn't always pretty speech.
The fact that Obama throws out this charge shows something very significant about his character, or more properly - the lack thereof. Sorry fan boy, but your dream boat is a first rate charlatan. Don't worry (like that was a concern) - you're just like the Repubs that put their hopes on "W" in 2000. And like them, you'll rationalize away all the guilt and shame that you should feel for that kind of naiveté. Then you will do the same thing all over again, because actually learning from your mistakes is just too much bother.
The numbers don't match so there must be some definition of regulations Politico is using vs this.
At least these numbers are cited unlike Politico.
If he did, why did this Administration not prosecute him (assuming it was a federal crime)?
As I see it, the question is whether or not he was CEO at Bain from 1999-2002. If he was, then he's got problems because their record during that time is less than stellar...a record that he is running on and saying is the reason why he is the one to fix the economy. If he was not, then documents that list him as CEO are forged and the SEC should prosecute, right? You know more about the law than I do so I'd be interested in your take.
The World Bank recently began publishing an annual "Doing Business Report" that ranks 183 national economies on 10 economic factors. As recently as 2008, the World Bank ranked the United States the fourth best country in the world in which to start a new business. Today, the U.S. has fallen to 13th place.
The biggest factor dragging the U.S. down is its complicated tax system, which ranks 72nd in ease of compliance -- slightly better than Madagascar but slightly worse than Djibouti. Under Obama, the U.S. corporate tax rate became the highest in the world when Japan cut its rate recently. True, the effective rate that companies actually pay is slightly lower, but only by investing millions in lawyers and accountants to manipulate the tax code. Every dollar that firms spend avoiding high taxes is a dollar they are not spending on research and development or capital investments.
The World Economic Forum has also downgraded the Obama economy. Its annual Global Competitiveness Index surveys more than 14,000 business leaders in 142 economies and ranks them on 12 "pillars of competitiveness." When Obama became president, the United States ranked 2nd. Now we rank 5th. The GCI explains the Obama era decline in terms of increased government debt and concerns over "the government's ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector." The survey also notes that "[i]n comparison with last year, policymaking is assessed as less transparent ... and regulation as more burdensome. ..."
But hey, research, World Bank, and World economic forum results are no match for a Politico reporter.
I would assume that Bain's 10-Q filings are available via the SEC, go look it up. I really don't care. The simple truth is Obama is using this for political mudslinging, not in the pursuit of justice. The latter is a legal matter - the former, well, it speaks for itself.
You'll vote for him anyway. You don't care what bodies he tramples over.
Post a Comment