The government's War on Business (You're next)

mises.org ^ | 9/6/02 | william anderson

[from occupied ga]

This sort of thing is just one example of how the federal government (and it's accomplices in state and local governments) have converted what was once a free country into a police state.

Not that I expect any of the bushbots who pollute FR with things like "a day in the life of King George II" (gush gush) to understand this, or even disapprove of it if they do understand it, but hopefully not everyone feels that the election of a Republican liberal statist was the answer to the evils caused by the previous Democrat liberal statist.

[Cold Heat]

Believe it or not, there is a great deal of concern for this issue in the Bush admin.

It is difficult to say publically because dems are running attack ads like the one against Hutchinson accusing him of voting for tax breaks to be given to Enron. They are unsurpassed when it comes to public manipulation. They are equal with the Islamacist's and Hitler.

[Cold Heat]

Small Business Focus: The Devil's in the Details
Release Date: 09/06/2002

by Jack Faris

Legendary New York Yankees manager Joe McCarthy joked that he once dreamed of dying, and on arrival in heaven, was asked to assemble a baseball team. Naturally, he called up such greats as Cy Young and Babe Ruth. They were unbeatable.

Then, the day came when his heavenly stars were called to face the Devil's team. McCarthy, knowing his players were the best, told the Devil he didn't have a prayer of winning.

"You're right," said the Devil, "but I've got all the umpires."

Here on Earth, the superstars of small business slug away daily on Main Street. They're great players, tirelessly hitting home runs for the nation's economy.

They have few rivals. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small firms dominate several sectors of the American economy. For example, 99.9 percent of all construction firms are small, as are 99.6 percent of enterprises in professional, scientific and technical services. Add 99.3 percent of health care and social assistance firms for good measure.

They're the best players. But their strongest opponent, the federal government, has all the umpires. While the small-business sector generates nearly three-fourths of net new jobs, complying with regulations costs them 60 percent more than their big-business counterparts. Their cost just to meet federal rules is nearly $7,000 per employee.

It's no surprise then that most small-business owners are tired of being hassled by the regulator-umpires. NFIB research found that the federal government was considered the primary culprit by virtually half of those surveyed. Forty-four percent called regulation a serious problem.

But just a few days ago, something happened that should help level the playing field. President Bush stepped into the game, called time-out, and told the umpires to play fair. Officially issuing Executive Order 13272, the president demanded that federal agencies, when writing new rules and regulations, implement policies that protect America's small businesses.

Although the Regulatory Flexibility Act has been in the rulebooks for 25 years, federal umps have ignored its requirement to consider the impact on small firms before they regulate.

They often "don't care that the law is on the books," the president said when he unveiled his small-business plan earlier this year. That plan includes an initiative to "tear down the regulatory barriers to job creation for small businesses and give small-business owners a voice in the complex and confusing federal regulatory process."

The feds may have all the umpires, but the man who controls the rulebook clearly intends to challenge any bad calls. The Executive Order sets regulation-writing policies and directs SBA's Office of Advocacy to train agencies to measure the regulatory damage on small firms, and review proposed rules before they're published. What's more, the bureaucrat-umpires will now have to report annually on their compliance.

Small-business owners are encouraged by this effort, but they'll keep a wary eye on the federal umpires. They've learned that when dealing with the government, the Devil is always in the details.

[from occupied ga]

Believe it or not, there is a great deal of concern for this issue in the Bush admin.

You are one of several people who have recently put forth the thesis that the Bush administration is going along with statist, unconstitutional things because of the political climate. I strongly disagree.

Have you heard of the principle of Occam's razor? Briefly put, it says that the most simple explanation is most likely the correct one. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and craps like a duck, it is very likely a duck. Likewise if the Bush signs bills like a liberal statist, refuses to rescind EO's on gun control like a liberal statist, refuses to put the brakes on the alphabet soup of agencies who sole purpose is to remove our freedoms like a liberal statist, then he is a liberal statist.

[from occupied ga]

But just a few days ago, something happened that should help level the playing field. President Bush stepped into the game, called time-out, and told the umpires to play fair. Officially issuing Executive Order 13272, the president demanded that federal agencies, when writing new rules and regulations, implement policies that protect America's small businesses.

Good news if it's followed. Do you have a link to the text of the EO?

[Cold Heat]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,

Sorry to mess up your opinions with the facts, but Bush is a businessman. He has and will do nothing that would be harmfull. He is trying to improve the climate.

You must have some other issues because you are dead wrong on this.

[Cold Heat]

Negative on the EO. I would call or E-mail your congress critter to see if he/she will send you the info.

This was in the news a few weeks ago. The dems attacked him for supporting more business welfare.

[RWG]

America's small businesses...what is the definition of a small business? An attorney just informed me that the definitions have been shifting from what the average citizen thniks a small business might be. He said 5,000 and above employees was a small business. For those with smaller workforces the definitions go to micro and such.

[Cold Heat]

BTW! The way I view it is that Bush, like all of us who have been burned in the market due to lies on the balance sheet is really and truly pissed. Even his relatives got ripped off.

These lies are predominately due to Clinton era largess in the accounting field which is largely leftist and a democrat stonghold.(along with trial lawyers)

This is Clintons and the democrats doings. Bush is trying to reverse it and regain confidence in the markets. Accounting reform has been trditionally blocked in the Senate, where we have never had a majority to break a fillibuster.

[PGalt]

Anderson sets up your typical strawman arguments with car analogies to buttress his thinking, and then he delivers the bomb...

Second, the expansion of criminal law becomes a tool of tyranny. When more and more activities are criminalized, in the end it means more ruined businesses, destroyed families, and increased financial burdens upon taxpayers, as they must pay for the expanding prison population. The United States already incarcerates more people than any other nation on the face of the earth (approximately two million, one-fourth of all the world’s prisoners), and the majority of them are in jail for non-violent offenses

Liberal, anti-freedom, criminal-enabling talking points...disgusting.

[from occupied ga]

Sorry to mess up your opinions with the facts, but Bush is a businessman. He has and will do nothing that would be harmfull. He is trying to improve the climate.

What facts would those be? You're the one without any facts. You have only stated your opinion - no facts.

Here are some facts for you. We have Bush signing the education and farm bills - two socialist pieces of legislation if ever there were. We have Bush's refusal to arm the pilots until presented with a veto proof majority in the senate. These are facts.

[Cold Heat]

Yah, sure! Should have vetoed the farm bill and education over some congressional largess that was surely despicable but could not be corrected due to a lack of votes to change it. The vetoes would have been overridden and the political damage certain.

Why don't you blame him for global warming and the stock market like the rest of the Bush haters around this forum.

Why don't you claim the war is about oil or bailing out his old man's mistakes.

I'll be lurking around to respond to that too.

[palmer]

Why is the government in the fraud protection racket at all any more? I realize there is a long history of government doing this, but with information age ideas like EBay (sellers rate buyers, buyers rate sellers, fraudulent ratings generally get cancelled out), there should be no need for government enforcement after the fact.

[from occupied ga]

Should have vetoed the farm bill and education over some congressional largess that was surely despicable but could not be corrected due to a lack of votes to change it. The vetoes would have been overridden and the political damage certain.

My my my how naive you are. What "political damage"? How would vetoing two pork laden rapes of the American public hurt Bush? His supporters would have cheered. His enemies would still hate him, but those conservatives in the middle would have come more into the Bush/Republican camp. As it is, his core supporters still love him (you can see their mindless droolings on the "day in the life..." thread). His enemies still hate him - he can't give enough of other peoples' money away to out squander and out plunder a Democrat. Core Democrats will always hate a Republican, no matter how socialistic he is. And those conservatives who were hoping for a change from the plunder and squander mentality in Washington are alienated. The political damage was done by Bush not vetoing those two bills.

Why don't you blame him for global warming and the stock market like the rest of the Bush haters around this forum.

I think "global warming" is a complete fraud perpetrated by socialists to try to expand government power (it's woking pretty well so far) and the stock market problems are due largely to government regulation and the fed.

Why don't you claim that Bush walks on water, raises the dead, changes water into wine? These are no more false than the claim that he is a conservative.

[Cold Heat]

I liked the education bill, except for the lack of vouchers.

The farm bill was in fact a congressional boondoggle. Full of pork and french fries. I believe it was signed to appease certain congress critters for a yes vote on other issues in the house and Senate. It is likely that they screwed him. The situation has changed since.

There is no way any one person is going to be happy with the results of a congressional session. At present the margins are so close as to be meaningless. The dems are successful in getting there crap attached to half way decent legislation.

The Ed bill was carved up when dickhead switched parties and the bill was rushed through the Senate. Controls and testing that the dems fought tooth and nail did get through for the most part. If ed doesnot improve I suspect a major overhaul of the dept. will finally take place.(assuming Bush gets 4 more and we get the Senate back.

For the most part, he has done well on domestic issues. I give him a B, considering the heavy opposition. Government must now go into a economy mode to get out of deficit and pay for the WOT. We shall see.

[Cold Heat]

My my my how naive you are.

Apparently you did not study Bush's record as governor prior to the election. I did and he is not surprising me.

He was known as being flexable but firm and a deal maker with the democrats.

No surprises. I expect the veto pen to warm up a little, now that attempts to negociate have been shot down by Dasshole.

[from occupied ga]

Apparently you did not study Bush's record as governor prior to the election

What difference does his record as governor of Texas make? It's his performance as president that is of concern now.

[Cold Heat]

What difference does his record as governor of Texas make? It's his performance as president that is of concern now.

LOL! Now who is naive?

[tacticalogic]

Over the last several decades, Congress has slowly but surely given over its lawmaking powers to judges and bureaucrats.

Gotta love the New Deal.

[from occupied ga]

Now who is naive

Taking his record a governor into account is like paying attention to campaign promises. It's what he does now that is relevant, not what he said or did in the past