Posts Tagged ‘regulation’

To what extent is Washington harming small business?

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

The Washington Post this morning has an interesting article exploring the effect of economic policy on small businesses. The piece concludes small businesses are overtaxed and overburdened by Washington.

In the last year-and-a-half, no less than a dozen programs have been created to help small businesses. Administrations past and present have focused their small business policy on loans and targeted tax credits with few results: there is too much uncertainty for small business owners to hire. Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight, says these programs, along with new regulations for things like health care and financial reform, have made entrepreneurs feel less secure about the economy. According to Bethune, “They may see it as more interference … they see it as bureaucratic intrusion.”

Chris Upham, owner of a real estate and construction business in Washington, DC, said higher taxes and more regulations have kept him from hiring new workers. He knows what he wants from Congress: “What I want government to do is not raise taxes — decrease them to allow us extra money for hiring.”

Upham’s real-world view stands counter to some in academia who are pushing Congress to raise taxes. Today in the Los Angeles Times an MIT professor suggests Congress raise the top income tax rates to pre-1980s levels (this means a top rate of 70 percent) to get the economy going again.

Lawmakers will return from recess next week and spend the remaining weeks of the legislative session considering new stimulus proposals (more on them here). Before they cast their votes, they should remember each decision they make will have consequences for all Americans, particularly small businesses.

ICYMI: “Good luck taming this corporation”

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

This morning, Michael Medved argues in USA Today that the government poses a greater threat to the nation’s economy than any of the recently reviled corporations:

No corporation on the planet comes close to the United States government in sheer magnitude, or unimaginable, unprecedented power. The nation’s top 100 corporations combined still fall far short of the behemoth in Washington, D.C., which conducts extensive operations in agriculture, weapons production, medical care, housing, real estate, education, mail delivery, policing, resource development, banking, the arts, security services, food provision, transportation and much, much more. Within five years, federal spending will consume 25% of every dollar generated by the private economy.

Every American feels the dramatic, relentless growth of federal power, but a dwindling minority — less than one-quarter, according to pollsters — wants Washington to do even more.

Hitting struggling corporations with more taxes, regulation, lawsuits and rhetorical abuse can hardly assist them in their all-important mission of job creation.

The public also understands that such recklessness, such unsustainable spending, would bring individuals or small businesses to rapid financial ruin; only the largest corporations, and the federal government itself, can get away with long-standing patterns of irresponsibility. The contrast raises the painful issue of double standards: the application of different rules for the people and the powerful.

Click here to read the full article.

Top 3: last week’s most popular posts

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Business leader says Washington is bad for business

As Americans sacrifice this summer, Washington piles on debt

POLL: Public Pulse

Business leader says Washington is bad for business

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Politicians and pundits often make grand claims about the effectiveness of their own economic policies and ideals. Too often, however, these claims don’t play out in the real world.

Recently, Verizon CEO, Ivan Seidenberg, shared his perspective on the real impact of Washington’s much-touted “growth” policies.

Below is an excerpt from a speech made by Seidenberg at the Business Roundtable:

My colleagues and I have worked closely with policy-makers across the political spectrum on matters from health care to trade and tax policy to energy and climate change. But frankly, we have become somewhat troubled by a growing disconnect between Washington and the business community that is harming our ability to expand the economy and grow private-sector jobs in the U.S. We see a host of laws, regulations and other policies being enacted that impose a government prescription of how individual industries ought to be structured, rather than produce an environment in which the private sector can innovate, invest and create jobs in this modern global economy.

In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore.

In the search for short-term revenue fixes, we’re doing long-term damage to growth.

By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses.

Meanwhile, without a sufficiently comprehensive focus on growth and jobs, our unemployment rate continues to hover close to 10 percent. The CBO says debt will rise to 90 percent of G.D.P. in 10 years. And last month’s job report showed the private sector creating only 41,000 jobs, a figure the Economic Policy Institute says is ‘nothing closely resembling the job growth needed to dig us out of our very deep hole.’

So, from our perspective, it’s time to refocus public policy on creating the conditions that will drive private-sector jobs.


The Odd Couple: 5 unfortunate similarities between Bush and Obama

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

At first glance former President Bush and President Obama seem like opposites when it comes to economic policy making.  Talk of Bush as a free-marketeer and deregulator abounds as Obama’s reputation as a big spender and intervener grow stronger by the day.  A closer look shows their economic policies have more in common than meets the eye.

5. They love to spend. Bush passed a $3 trillion budget for 2009.  Obama posted a $3.5 trillion budget in 2010.  Bush doubled the debt to almost $6 trillion and Obama’s plans would leave us with an IOU of an additional $8.5 trillion by 2020.

4. They shop at the same stores. Contrary to popular belief, defense and homeland security spending only made up about 40 percent of Bush’s new spending.  He increased spending across most non-defense categories – like education, Medicare, Medicaid, income security and regional development – by four to six times the rate of inflation.  In Obama’s first half year in office, as he demanded a departure from the “investment deficit” years under Bush, these budgets rose another 70 percent or 40 times the rate of inflation.

3. They dabble with stimulants. In 2001 and 2008, Bush spent billions on rebates to stimulate consumer spending.  In 2009, Obama upped the ante with his $862 billion stimulus package.

2. They give sweetheart deals to failing corporations. Obama carried out Bush’s unpopular $700 billion bailout for failing corporations.  Together, the presidents have bailed out over 600 businesses since Spring 2008.

1. They enjoy regulating in their free time. Once again contrary to popular belief, President Bush was the biggest regulator since Richard Nixon.  Under his leadership in 2007, the number of pages of regulation added to the Federal Register reached an all-time high of 78,090  – a 21 percent increase from Bush’s first year.  And spending on regulatory activities rose to $42 billion in 2009 – a 62 percent increase.  Since taking office, Obama has proposed a large and sweeping increase in regulation that many worry could lead to another financial crisis in the future.

Despite rhetoric that suggests the contrary, President Obama’s economic policies are strikingly more of the same failed policies that Bush tried before him.  This is unfortunate because, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claims, the last decade has seen declining private-sector employment and declining median household income.