Posted on 08/14/2015 7:22:29 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
Both political parties like to reinforce the image of Democrats embracing government regulations while Republicans fight them but a new study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University shows that, as George Gershwin might put it, “It ain’t necessarily so.” Barack Obama
“President Obama not only oversaw the greatest increase in regulatory restrictions in a single term, his first, but as of 2014 he edged past President George W. Bush as the president with the greatest total increase in restrictions since 1976,” Patrick McLaughlin and Oliver Sherouse write. “Presidents Carter and George H. W. Bush both had increases of more than 70,000 in their first terms, but both lost their reelection bids. Interestingly, while Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton both added regulations at similar rates across their two terms—with Clinton adding significantly fewer restrictions overall compared to Bush—President Reagan oversaw a large increase in regulation during his first term, but a relatively small increase during his second term.”
“From these charts, a picture emerges of a 40-year bipartisan trend of regulatory accumulation, with the last two presidents adding the most regulatory restrictions. However, some presidents, such as President Clinton and President Reagan in his second term, were able to significantly restrain the growth of regulation. Future presidents will need to look to their predecessors to determine how to effectively manage the cumulative effect of regulation and maintain the necessary conditions for entrepreneurship and growth.”
Both parties also increase the size of government and spending.
I want to see the chart. I’m betting there’s a stronger correlation with Congressional leadership. The President and his cabinet do set a lot of regulations but Congress sets the regulatory environment.
And as a side note, it would really be helpful if all regulations came with a sunset provision: Without reauthorization every four years or so (preferably by a Congressional vote), the regulation expires.
I tell this story very often. When I was in law school the Federal Register came out every day as a little booklet. Now it comes out as bound volumes.
How much is the difference of increase between both parties?
A did the country no favors when he got the DHS set up. That was a huge mistake.
We really need a sea change with someone who understands that the regulatory agencies are fundamentally unconstitutional, an illegal transference of the legislative powers to unelected bureaucrats. Only one candidate to my knowledge understands the underpinnings of the Constitution, and *why* the status-quo must change - Cruz. Besides the regulation issue, there is also the federales being outside of Art I Section 8.
The Constitution is the only law passed directly by the American people. For DC to not follow it invalidates the people’s agreement for representative government.
I meant W not A.
I think this article nails it. Both parties regulate with different intents. It makes me more of a libertarian every day.
conclusion: The regulators are running on autopilot 24/7.
The right hand does not know what the 637 left hands are doing.
I wonder if any government agency or government program has ever been eliminated? Has any Congress ever decided that a particular issue has been resolved, so that there is no longer any need for such an agency?
I can think of some I would like to eliminate. For example, I don’t think the state of public education has improved since Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education. We would survive nicely if that bureaucracy closed down.
But just wondering if anyone has ever eliminated any government program?
Well duh.
Congress is OK with the agencies making laws. Its even less work for the congress to do and they have someone else to blame for the peoples’ frustration with government. In response to constituent complaints, congress may hold some hearings to placate the folks back home. But everyone of them knows that this is nothing but political theater and nothing will come of it. And the scam goes on to the next issue. Its the same old movie all over again.
Congress is completely content to allow this illegal transference of legislative powers to unelected bureaucrats. As long as they can keep their cushy do-nothing jobs, that’s all that matters. Just keep fleecing the people.
Yup. This article is from a 10,000 foot view, and thus highly untrustworthy. There can be a good regulation and a bad regulation. Although both a regulation, they are not the same.
I wonder if any government agency or government program has ever been eliminated? Has any Congress ever decided that a particular issue has been resolved, so that there is no longer any need for such an agency?
**************
One example comes to mind: the Resolution Trust Corporation. The RTC was created as a government chartered corporation back in 1989 to clean up the savings and loan mess of the 80’s. The agency completed its work and it basically shut down in 1995. It did transfer some residual work to other agencies but for all practical purposed it ceased to exist. This was a unique organization with a unique mission that congress and the president wanted to put behind them.
There may some other examples but there won’t be many of them. Once an agency starts it quickly takes on a life of its own and develops its own political constituencies, backers and allies.
Simple answer NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Yes, they do. That is why Trump looks better than the rest.
I’m growing increasingly pessimistic about the potential for righting the ship in this country. Demographic and cultural trends are not in our favor. The votes of those who care are being neutralized by those who don’t care and just want more goodies from the government. The takers are overwhelming us.
The gibsmedats are quite daunting.
OTOH, the Constitutional Conservatives of 1787 were a minority then too. A good number of people just went on with their daily lives. A good number of people argued against it.
And, 12 years before that, only 1/3 were actively engaged in freedom.
Likewise, we must plow thru the takers and ‘Rats of today. Might as well, no matter the odds, and at least go down fighting if that be our lot.
All the more reason to back the Convention of States to put new limits on the federales.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.