U.S. Regulatory Costs Are World's No. 10 Economy

[ChezC3]

After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world.

That's according to the latest annual report on the regulatory state issued by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, titled "Ten Thousand Commandments."

Compiling reports of compliance costs from various government agencies and outside sources, author Clyde Wayne Crews found that the "regulation tax" imposed on the economy now tops $1.86 trillion.

By comparison, Canada's entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India's is $1.84 trillion.

U.S. Federal Regulatory Costs Are The World's 10th Largest Economy - Investors.com

So Obama IS helping the economy...just not ours or one that actually produces anything...:doh

 

[Carjosse]

Goddamn India.

 

[Wiseone]

U.S. Federal Regulatory Costs Are The World's 10th Largest Economy - Investors.com

So Obama IS helping the economy...just not ours or one that actually produces anything...:doh

I totally agree that US tax law is stupidly complex, mostly pointless, and generally more of a burden to everyone than it needs to be. However if we want to try and solve that we're going to have to look way beyond Obama and into Congress as well, that is not to draw attention away from Obama but rather to focus your perspective correctly. This monster has been growing for decades, and under both parties, its a much bigger issue than a single president.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The cost of the Federal government is 31% of the economy? That's... well... I'm at a loss for words.

 

[iliveonramen]

I kept trying to get at his numbers but the whole paper references his other paper...a work in progress apparently called "tip of the costberg".
As mentioned in his paper the OMB publishes a cost of major Federal Regulations. The cost over a 10 year period was nothing close to the cost he's mentioning.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I totally agree that US tax law is stupidly complex, mostly pointless, and generally more of a burden to everyone than it needs to be. However if we want to try and solve that we're going to have to look way beyond Obama and into Congress as well, that is not to draw attention away from Obama but rather to focus your perspective correctly. This monster has been growing for decades, and under both parties, its a much bigger issue than a single president.

They call it a tax in the article because it's a cost to business to comply with federal regulations. It isn't a 'tax' that is in the tax code. It's the cost of regulations, that are promulgate by the Administration, not Congress.

 

[Wiseone]

They call it a tax in the article because it's a cost to business to comply with federal regulations. It isn't a 'tax' that is in the tax code. It's the cost of regulations, that are promulgate by the Administration, not Congress.

Its more than the administration, Congress can also pass the laws that create new regulation and they do so.

 

[ChezC3]

I totally agree that US tax law is stupidly complex, mostly pointless, and generally more of a burden to everyone than it needs to be. However if we want to try and solve that we're going to have to look way beyond Obama and into Congress as well, that is not to draw attention away from Obama but rather to focus your perspective correctly. This monster has been growing for decades, and under both parties, its a much bigger issue than a single president.

I would agree with that however Obama has taken an aggressive role from Day 1 in meting out authority (at unprecedented lengths so says the article)to regulatory bodies and by-passing the legislative process.

I do blame Congress though for allowing this to transpire but with Congress such as it is with Pelosi and Reid leading one side and the equally despicable Boehner and Cantor leading the other, you have to lay the heft of the blame on the guy doing it and that's Obama, we got a raw deal right now where all 3 branches of our government are all crappy to the point it should make me think they're all in collusion.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Its more than the administration, Congress can also pass the laws that create new regulation and they do so.

I don't give Congress a pass. However, related to this OP and the article at its center, the Administration is the one that promulgates regulations that are not enumerated in laws passed by Congress and cost American businesses and the economy Billions of Dollars, and that's the point of this thread.

 

[Deuce]

I don't give Congress a pass. However, related to this OP and the article at its center, the Administration is the one that promulgates regulations that are not enumerated in laws passed by Congress and cost American businesses and the economy Billions of Dollars, and that's the point of this thread.

As I pointed out in the other thread on this exact report, there are substantial costs associated with the recurrent training I, as a pilot, am required to accomplish. Should i continue to pay them?

 

[Beaudreaux]

As I pointed out in the other thread on this exact report, there are substantial costs associated with the recurrent training I, as a pilot, am required to accomplish. Should i continue to pay them?

You make a very good point. However, you are in a highly regulated industry that requires a license to practice and is so because of the risk to life if those that practice your profession are not current with recurring training and medical exams. I have a pilot's license also. Although I do not have a commercial ticket, I do have a multi-engine instrument rating, and I have to have my medical renewed and I have to do check rides when I want to fly a new set up or a new A/C.

This is the same for medical practitioners, those in law, people that have pesticide licenses and so on. However, the average guy that owns a small business (or even a big business) is not required to have a professional license to practice. Yet, the government has created a myriad of regulations that negatively impact a small business' ability to make a profit, much less give their employees a raise or benefits.

Like I said. You make a very good point. However, your particular situation is not comparable to the great majority of businesses that are hampered by over regulation and unneeded constraint.

 

[Deuce]

You make a very good point. However, you are in a highly regulated industry that requires a license to practice and is so because of the risk to life if those that practice your profession are not current with recurring training and medical exams. I have a pilot's license also. Although I do not have a commercial ticket, I do have a multi-engine instrument rating, and I have to have my medical renewed and I have to do check rides when I want to fly a new set up or a new A/C.

This is the same for medical practitioners, those in law, people that have pesticide licenses and so on. However, the average guy that owns a small business (or even a big business) is not required to have a professional license to practice. Yet, the government has created a myriad of regulations that negatively impact a small business' ability to make a profit, much less give their employees a raise or benefits.

Like I said. You make a very good point. However, your particular situation is not comparable to the great majority of businesses that are hampered by over regulation and unneeded constraint.

Food safety for restaurants? Safety gear for construction?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Food safety for restaurants? Safety gear for construction?

Those are not the regulations I'm talking about. And, I think you know that.

There is a need for a certain level of regulations or the free market turns into a free fall of civility. Did you notice that the two instances you mentioned also involve life safety, as did the ones I mentioned in my first response to you?

 

[imagep]

I totally agree that US tax law is stupidly complex, mostly pointless, and generally more of a burden to everyone than it needs to be. However if we want to try and solve that we're going to have to look way beyond Obama and into Congress as well, that is not to draw attention away from Obama but rather to focus your perspective correctly. This monster has been growing for decades, and under both parties, its a much bigger issue than a single president.

Exactly. It's not like our tax laws just became convoluted under Obama, it's something that has been building and compounding for nearly a hundred years.

 

[imagep]

The cost of the Federal government is 31% of the economy? That's... well... I'm at a loss for words.

Doesn't matter what the cost is, as long as that cost is adding to profitability (wealth creation) and keeping our freedom and resulting in a higher quality of life. Every government has a cost, all that matters is the net quality of life. Ours is in the top 10%, and most countries that have a higher quality of life has similar govermental cost if not more, with the possible exceptions of some of the oil rich countries and micro-states.

 

[imagep]

They call it a tax in the article because it's a cost to business to comply with federal regulations. It isn't a 'tax' that is in the tax code. It's the cost of regulations, that are promulgate by the Administration, not Congress.

Surely you are not suggesting that there was never compliance cost before THIS administration are you?

 

[imagep]

You make a very good point. However, you are in a highly regulated industry that requires a license to practice and is so because of the risk to life if those that practice your profession are not current with recurring training and medical exams. I have a pilot's license also. Although I do not have a commercial ticket, I do have a multi-engine instrument rating, and I have to have my medical renewed and I have to do check rides when I want to fly a new set up or a new A/C.

This is the same for medical practitioners, those in law, people that have pesticide licenses and so on. However, the average guy that owns a small business (or even a big business) is not required to have a professional license to practice. Yet, the government has created a myriad of regulations that negatively impact a small business' ability to make a profit, much less give their employees a raise or benefits.

Like I said. You make a very good point. However, your particular situation is not comparable to the great majority of businesses that are hampered by over regulation and unneeded constraint.

The vast majority of regulations are created to eliminate problems. Once they are created, and businesses are complying with them, the problems are eliminated. It's easy after a period of time without those problems to forget what those problems were, and thus we may tend to think that the regulations are not needed. If we were to repeal many of those regulations, the problems would reappear, and we would remember why we established them in the first place.

If the libertarian concept that no business would ever do anyone wrong and would always act responsibly and in the best interest of their employees, customers, venders and our our environment (because doing so would cost them business and profits) worked in the real life, we would have never created the regulations.

Unfortunately, that libertarian concept would only work if everyone gave a damn about others, and if every customer had access to perfect information and understood that information perfectly. That doesn't happen to be the case in real life.

 

[imagep]

Those are not the regulations I'm talking about. And, I think you know that.

There is a need for a certain level of regulations or the free market turns into a free fall of civility. Did you notice that the two instances you mentioned also involve life safety, as did the ones I mentioned in my first response to you?

Please list the regulations that you are thinking about. I've asked this question a zillion times, no one has ever given me an answer, aside from "Obamacare".

 

[Gaius46]

You make a very good point. However, you are in a highly regulated industry that requires a license to practice and is so because of the risk to life if those that practice your profession are not current with recurring training and medical exams. I have a pilot's license also. Although I do not have a commercial ticket, I do have a multi-engine instrument rating, and I have to have my medical renewed and I have to do check rides when I want to fly a new set up or a new A/C.

This is the same for medical practitioners, those in law, people that have pesticide licenses and so on. However, the average guy that owns a small business (or even a big business) is not required to have a professional license to practice. Yet, the government has created a myriad of regulations that negatively impact a small business' ability to make a profit, much less give their employees a raise or benefits.

Like I said. You make a very good point. However, your particular situation is not comparable to the great majority of businesses that are hampered by over regulation and unneeded constraint.

I agree but would point out alot of small business regulation is actually done at the state level which makes the cost (and complexity) to business even higher. Why does my barber need a license to cut hair?

For the record Obama's predecessor was just as bad with additions to Federal regulations.

 

[imagep]

I agree but would point out alot of small business regulation is actually done at the state level which makes the cost (and complexity) to business even higher. Why does my barber need a license to cut hair?

For the record Obama's predecessor was just as bad with additions to Federal regulations.

Yup.

State and local regulations are usually the ones I hear people complaining about, not federal. Generally the federal government leaves licensing issues up to individuals states.

In the city limits of my town, I have to have a permit to display a banner on my own property. I think that is ridiculous, but that's not a federal regulation, it's a city regulation.

John Stossel has a libertarian viewpoint show on fox news, he complains a lot about regulations in general, but when he points out specific examples, they are almost always state and local level regulations, not federal. Most federal regulations have to do with limiting externalities forced onto other parties, such as pollution. I don't really know anyone who is "for" more pollution.

 

[sangha]

Those are not the regulations I'm talking about. And, I think you know that.

There is a need for a certain level of regulations or the free market turns into a free fall of civility. Did you notice that the two instances you mentioned also involve life safety, as did the ones I mentioned in my first response to you?

So what *are* you talking about?

So far, all you've mentioned is licensing which is a minor matter for nearly every small business and once done, needs no more attention from the business owner

 

[29A]

U.S. Federal Regulatory Costs Are The World's 10th Largest Economy - Investors.com

So Obama IS helping the economy...just not ours or one that actually produces anything...:doh

For what it is worth, the OMB reviews regulation costs and benefits on a 10-year basis and concluded the following:

“From fiscal year 2003(FY 2003) through FY 2012, Federal agencies published 37,786 final rules in the Federal Register. OMB reviewed 3,203 of these final rules… "
…
The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2012, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $193 billion and $800 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $57 billion and $84 billion. These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars… "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2013_cb/draft_2013_cost_benefit_report.pdf

 

[imagep]

For what it is worth, the OMB reviews regulation costs and benefits on a 10-year basis and concluded the following:

“From fiscal year 2003(FY 2003) through FY 2012, Federal agencies published 37,786 final rules in the Federal Register. OMB reviewed 3,203 of these final rules… "
…
The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2012, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $193 billion and $800 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $57 billion and $84 billion. These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars… "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2013_cb/draft_2013_cost_benefit_report.pdf

The real question is what would be the cost to the world if we didn't have regulations? Like if companies were allowed to endlessly pump pollution into our air, rivers, lakes, ocean, etc? Or if they could fill up our products with carcenogens? Or if they were allowed to make products that exploded upon use?

It's a matter of weighing the good against the bad.