AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (29 comments)

  1. mesa econoguy

    As I stated yesterday, hyperregulation and massive looming taxation does not foster economic growth.

    Also as I have said thousands of times, leftists do not understand economics (or regulation).

    1. Also as I have said thousands of times, leftists do not understand economics (or regulation)“…

      Well there is one facet of economics the lefties do understand very well, that facet is that its always better to spend someone else’s money on stupid leftie ideas than for lefties to spend their own money pursuing those stupid ideas…

      1. mesa econoguy

        But eventually that money runs out, and by stifling growth, they destroy their precious welfare & redistribution programs.

        Hence, leftists do not understand economics.

        1. But eventually that money runs out, and by stifling growth, they destroy their precious welfare & redistribution programs“…

          Come on now econoguy, every leftie knows that Margaret Thatcher was a clueless crank…. Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh!

          Madame Thatcher scared the fecal matter out of the lefties…

          Margaret Thatcher slaps down socialists in Parliment

  2. Well every year the Competitive Enterprise Institute comes out with the massive tome: Ten Thousand Commandments 2012

    An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State

    Regulatory compliance costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $198 billion, and exceed individual income taxes and even pre-tax corporate profits…

    Just more extortion on the part of government with little or no upside for the rest of us…

    1. mesa econoguy

      Thanks for posting that link juandos, I’ve been looking for something like that for some time now.

      Current regulatory burden is staggering, and it will only get much, much worse, and kill more growth at a time when we need it most.

      It would be hard for me to come up with a better intentional economic sabotage than the current Obama policies.

      1. It only gets uglier the deep you look into the federal extortion game econoguy

        Note the following: Daily Caller 12/27/2012:EPA costs US economy $353 billion per year

        Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / The Regulatory Plan
        226 pages of romping, stomping good times cranked out by federal bureaucratic parasites…

    2. Unless you happen to be in the field of corporate compliance or auditing. Then the “extortion” sounds like justification for your chosen career path. One person doing, and one person checking.

      1. Unless you happen to be in the field of corporate compliance or auditing. Then the “extortion” sounds like justification for your chosen career path. One person doing, and one person checking“…

        What about the persons paying rufus?

  3. Why we need the REINS Act. I called Rand Paul’s office and he does plan to reintroduce this legislation in the current congress. Congress would have to approve and be accountable for any regulatory burdens in excess of
    $100 million. This would cripple a guy like Obama and save us all.

  4. Folks, by reading these messages one cannot help but realize that one could “fool most people most of the time.”
    Bernie and Timmy and C’ass and Jack and dozens more of their ilk in puppet-Obama’s pawn shop are like the master cheffs in the now financially and morally bankrupt American “kitchen.”
    THESE LOOTERS “COOK” THE BOOKS IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. WAKE THE HELL UP…

  5. Todd Mason

    Do you read the underlying reports? Cuz it seems like Mr P rings the dinner bell and you start yapping. Of the headline $181B in regulatory costs, $156B is created in new CAFE standards for cars in model years 2016-2025. Now wingnuts may prefer corporate giveaways as a method of reducing dependence on foreign oil. But one difference is that consumers will benefit from more efficient cars (have benefited greatly) while Dubya’s ethanol mandate hurts them in the supermarket as well as at the gas pump. Now you can say that Europeans drive much more efficient cars than we do and didn’t need govt interference to get there. But, unlike us, they pay petrol taxes that might actually cover the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-23/drop-the-federal-gas-tax-and-build-better-roads.html
    As for the top corporate payers, the banks on the list appear to be so because they paid FINES for mortgage shenanigans. I’m sure their lawyers presented it as a victory, as in no one went to jail.

    1. “But one difference is that consumers will benefit from more efficient cars (have benefited greatly)”

      And so of course consumers need liberals like Todd and Obama to mandate it for them since they’re too stupid to do what benefits them on their own.

      “..while Dubya’s ethanol mandate hurts them in the supermarket as well as at the gas pump. ”

      Good point, agreed. In current news, Lord Obama, an ethanol whore when he was in the Senate and Presidential candidate, could request his radical minions over at EPA to suspend the ethanol mandate anytime he pleases. Thus far, he hasn’t bothered:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/business/energy-environment/epa-upholds-ethanol-standard-on-use-in-gasoline.html?_r=0

      1. Todd Mason

        And if you read the NYTimes story you would see that the EPA’s position is that it cannot suspend the requirements because conditions under which the law allows waivers have not been met. Feel free to ask Boehner to ax it. I’m betting the Senate and O will go along. Of course, the IL Ds will vote against it.

        That’s the point isn’t it? The carmakers and oil companies make it impossible to raise gas taxes to where they belong. So we wind up with convoluted regulations to keep efficiency moving up even in the periods when it doesn’t seem to matter. The insurers are adamantly opposed to a public option in healthcare, even though they’re supposed to be much better at controlling costs, so we have a convoluted ACA. The drug companies don’t want medicare to negoitate directly so Part D is a nightmare of impossible rules. (MY Advantage insurer spends more on paper and postage than I do on drugs.) What’s the common denominator? .

        1. “And if you read the NYTimes story you would see that the EPA’s position is that it cannot suspend the requirements because conditions under which the law allows waivers have not been met.”

          Oh, please. The conditions are whether ethanol is creating economic harm: pretty much indisputable that it is. EPA is just passing the buck.

          EPA loves themselves some ethanol. Their bizarre ante-upping regardng non-existent cellulosic ethanol production was struck down by the court last month: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0205/EPA-doubles-down-on-ethanol-mandates

          ” The carmakers and oil companies make it impossible to raise gas taxes to where they belong.”

          Hah! According to who? You? Obama’s already soaked me enough. Write a check to the Treasury if you want to pay more taxes.

          “So we wind up with convoluted regulations to keep efficiency moving up even in the periods when it doesn’t seem to matter.”

          Yes, because government is a well-oiled machine for creating efficiency! Love the “tax it or we’ll regulate it” liberal thought process.

          “The insurers are adamantly opposed to a public option in healthcare, even though they’re supposed to be much better at controlling costs, so we have a convoluted ACA. ”

          Right. It couldn’t be fear that a government created “public option” would win out in a rigged game, would it? You want an even more effective trojan horse for Single Payer. You aren’t fooling anyone.

          “What’s the common denominator? .”

          Todd wants more incompetent federal chair warmers who sit in ugly gray buildings in DC to control our lives.

          1. Todd Mason

            Paul wants someone else to pay for

          2. Todd Mason

            Disregard the above postus interruptis.

            Here is the exact language from the 2007 law allowing the EPA to waive the mandate if, among other conditions, “implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United States.”

            If you don’t think the ethanol industry would sue in a heartbeat, you’re nuts. Dubya created yet another constituency that will defend its turf to the death. Go see if Boehner is eager to p*** off ADM.

            Who says the gas tax is too low? I guess you missed my earlier link to that bolshevik wire service, Bloomberg News, which says everyone who is looked at the bankrupt Highway Trust Fund has said raise the gas tax. But congress hasn’t managed that since 1993, so the despairing Bloomberg writer says give up on it if you want good roads. However, alternative funding sources will not help the national debt, or apply steady, consistent pressure on drivers to buy more efficient cars as smarter govts did in Europe.

            Dunno what your problem is with a public option. Given transparent funding, the insurers will shine as sinecures of thrift and the govt will bumble to an early failure according to the Gospel of the Other Paul.

            You forgot Medicare. How is it that stripping Medicare of its purchasing power protects “free markets”?

            The common denominator is that crew of very smart people on K Street who spend their days wondering how they can keep small business types in harness as corporate stooges. Another common denominator are the folks who like their Interstate Highways but don’t want to pay for them. Which are you, Paul? Stooge or greedhead?
            I think of myself as a libertarian rather than a liberal, but you are entitled to your own opinion. I know I am smart enough to trace the hand in my pocket to the offending arm and they belong to, in the order of my examples, ADM, GM, Aetna, and Merck.

          3. “If you don’t think the ethanol industry would sue in a heartbeat, you’re nuts.”

            So? It would be a slam dunk for the EPA. But the EPA and His Highness are obviously not interested in pissing off the ethanol industry, they’re lock-in-step.

            ” Dubya created yet another constituency that will defend its turf to the death. Go see if Boehner is eager to p*** off ADM.”

            Speaking of ADM, here’s some interesting reading for you: “Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.

            That was ’08. Here’s a heartwarming ad your hero ran in 2012.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBLAPy0olRY

            In other news, Bush hasn’t been President for 5 years. There’s a new head ho’ for ethanol. Hint: he has big funny ears and needs a teleprompter to ask for directions to the men’s room.

            “I guess you missed my earlier link to that bolshevik wire service, Bloomberg News, which says everyone who is looked at the bankrupt Highway Trust Fund has said raise the gas tax.”

            Ah, well, that sucks. You telling me the government raided the funds and pissed it away on other things? But I seem to recall Obama being a gifted a trillion dollars a few yrs ago. Something about “shovel-ready jobs” if I remember correctly. I saw some road workers today. They all had shovels.

            “Dunno what your problem is with a public option. Given transparent funding, the insurers will shine as sinecures of thrift and the govt will bumble to an early failure according to the Gospel of the Other Paul.”

            A) You are under the false impression I’m under the spell of the insurance industry.
            B) It’s comical you think the Democrats would allow their public option baby to blow up in their face. In reality, as I said, public option was a swifter path to the Single Payer(that you endorse coincidentally enough!) But you don’t have to take my word for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoU1r3segmo

            “You forgot Medicare. How is it that stripping Medicare of its purchasing power protects “free markets”?”

            I didn’t forget it. I’m against Medicare A-D, and was disgusted when Bush went along with the Democrats’ prescription drug benefit fever.

            “I think of myself as a libertarian rather than a liberal, ”

            LOL! And I like to think of myself as a gangsta’ rapper. I’ll be coming out with my own solo album just as soon as I can get P Diddy to return my calls. I’m also Mr Universe in waiting. Wait, now I’m the queen of England.

            ” I know I am smart enough to trace the hand in my pocket to the offending arm and they belong to, in the order of my examples, ADM, GM, Aetna, and Merck.”

            And yet you can’t see Mr $16 trillion himself, Obama! If you want those corporate cronies also out of your pocket, here’s a clue: reduce the size of government that makes it possible in the first place. But you should know that already since you’re such a “libertarian.”

    2. mesa econoguy

      Not to interrupt Paul’s hilarious destruction of your asininity and economic ignorance, but know why clean diesel technology was developed in Europe and not the US, Todd?

      US emissions requirements were more stringent than Europe’s.

      Regulation drove the development of that technology offshore, idiot.

      1. Todd Mason

        You aren’t interrupting anything, Mesa. But speaking of assinity and economic ignorance, if European emission standards are lower than ours then why would they bother with clean diesel technology? Logic seems to be a wingnut problem, eh?
        Emission standards are lower in Europe in fact, but passenger car diesel penetration is orders of magnitude higher because of the consistent pressure there for fuel economy, plus favorable tax treatment of diesel. Half of the cars in Europe are diesel. Having economies of scale, European carmakers could afford to meet U.S. ultra-low-sulphur standards enacted in model year 2007. In fact, the largest passenger car diesel marque, VW, stopped selling diesel cars in the US in model years 2007 and 2008.
        Most Americans think diesels are loud, smelly, lack acceleration and aren’t reliable, all of which US manufacturers underscored in a brief flowering of diesel cars in the 1970s. Those problems continue today, in semi engines adapted to pickup trucks with varying degrees of success: http://www.thedieselstop.com/forums/f23/6-0-diesel-powerstroke-problems-186314/
        Happy to contribute to your education, Mesa.

        1. mesa econoguy

          “But speaking of assinity [sic] and economic ignorance, if European emission standards are lower than ours then why would they bother with clean diesel technology?”

          Because government mandated reduced emissions. Why is government doing this?

          Todd, question for you:

          Why do you assume that killing your customers via higher emissions is something auto companies want to do?

          That is the implicit (and incorrect) assumption in your childish analysis.

          As I have stated, thousands of times before, you moronic leftists do not understand economics and regulation.

          1. Todd Mason

            Hey, Mesa, you should pick a topic you understand, or at the very least, quit while you are behind. Diesel passenger cars were dead in the US long before the emission rules took effect in 2007. Not me saying this. Here is Popular Mechanics, which is not known for its political leanings: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/diesel/4330313
            :

          2. mesa econoguy

            Oh, ok , sure Todd, just like the Volt, right?

            Yeah, that was awesome

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/04/28/shifting-capital-from-the-productive-to-the-sexy/

            Todd, you really need to reexamine your misunderstanding of economics, and your general ignorance.

        2. Todd Mason

          What the Europeans understand, and apparently you and GM do not, is that consumers are driven by price and performance rather than emissions. If the price of gasoline is artificially low based solely on maintaining the roads necessary to its use, why you would pay a capital-cost penalty for a Volt or a diesel? Seriously, if you have a degree in economics, our next discussion should be about failings in US higher education.

          1. mesa econoguy

            Todd, GM is you. You bot that. Obama bot that.

            As we say in the biz, UFO (U Fucking Own it)

            What you obviously do not understand is that Europe is broke, because of your policies.

            Howz dat feel, leftist pig?

          2. “If the price of gasoline is artificially low based solely on maintaining the roads necessary to its use, why you would pay a capital-cost penalty for a Volt or a diesel?”

            Obama could always suspend the (racist originated)Davis-Bacon act and save 15-20% on the cost of infrastructure rebuilding immediately. But Leftists like Obama and Todd would much rather hike our taxes yet again than interrupt the union goon-Democrat circle jerk.

          3. Here’s some more info Todd, grief stricken over the bankrupt highway trust fund, might consider after he dries the tears on his pillow:

            “A Government Accountability Office report found that 32% of the HTF didn’t go toward highway or bridge construction and upkeep from fiscal 2004-08. That rose to 38% in 2009, according to an analysis by Ron Utt, senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.”

            http://news.investors.com/090111-583549-highway-funds-going-off-road.aspx?p=full

            But maybe Todd believes if we just raise taxes high enough, eventually we’ll outstrip the federal government’s ability to spend all the available revenues.

          4. mesa econoguy

            This is fantastic –

            “If the price of gasoline is artificially low based solely on maintaining the roads necessary to its use…”

            Let’s walk thru this economic illogic and stupidity step-by-step.

            1. Gas price is artificially low – how? What is suppressing that price?
            2. based solely on maintaining the roads – wait, that’s a cost. Shouldn’t the price of gas go up for that? It’s added cost…
            3. necessary to its use – ok, that’s infrastructure. I thought you lefties were infrastructure “enthusiasts”….? And isn’t that a proper role of government, as opposed to, say, public employee union pensions?

            So what you seem to be saying Todd is that taxes, and cost of petrol should be higher.

            This is a perfect example of leftist economic ignorance. Complete, total bullshit.

            Enjoying your 14% unemployment yet, Todd?

        3. mesa econoguy

          PS, lol, Popular Mechanics.

          Get bent.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content