11:22 AM, Jun 7, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER
At a Democratic fundraiser in Palo Alto, California, President Barack Obama described himself as a common sense Democrat.
"I remain hopeful, because I've run my last campaign, that over the next three years, we're going to see more of the bipartisan efforts that we're seeing in some areas. For example, Michael Bennet is doing a great job working with the so-called Gang of Eight to finally get immigration reform done so that we're a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and we are fixing a broken immigration system. So there are areas where we're starting to see glimmers of functionality in Washington," said Obama.
"But on too many area, we're not getting the kind of cooperation that we need -- not because the Democrats are particularly ideological or left-wing right now. The truth of the matter is Michael and I -- I know that there are a few Republicans here in the audience -- if you talk to us, it turns out we're pretty common-sense folks. We don't think government can do everything. We don't think that top-down solutions are the right way to go. We believe in the free market. We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations. We don't want to tax all businesses out of business. But we do think that there's a role to play for government."
Obama also blamed Washington for the country's problems, saying the town he lives in is "broken."
"So the reason that Washington is a problem is not because government generically is the problem; the reason Washington is a problem is right now it's broken. It's not working the way it needs to. And, look, historically -- I am a strong Democrat because I believe in the basic principle that everybody should have a chance. Everybody should have opportunity -- it doesn’t matter where they're born, what their last name is, what circumstances they started in, who they love. I want everybody to have a fair shot. But I'm the first one to admit Democrats don't have a monopoly on wisdom. I will say, though, right now (laughter) -- when it comes to doing the things that need to get done, we're just not getting a lot of cooperation from the other side. We're just not getting a lot of cooperation from the other side," said Obama, according to a transcript provided by the White House.
Nearly double the cost of the first three years of Bush and Clinton combined.2:29 PM, Jan 30, 2013 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
As Adam White discusses in detail, there’s nothing moderate or incremental about the increase in federal regulations — and hence in centralized executive power — under President Obama. To the contrary (as White notes), according to figures published by the Obama White House (see table 2-1), the costs of regulations issued by this administration have dwarfed the costs of regulations issued by prior administrations.
11:46 AM, Oct 22, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
In the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson highlights how Obamacare would needlessly complicate our society, make it more maddeningly litigious, give the I.R.S. more prominence, and make it harder for workers to get employers to give them so much as 30 hours a week.
9:26 AM, Apr 26, 2012 • By ADAM J. WHITE
"Independent agencies" occupy an odd corner of American government. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, National Labor Relations Board, Federal Communications Commission, and others are nominally "independent" of the president's control—usually thanks to limits on the president's power to fire the agencies' leaders—and thus enjoy seemingly unlimited discretion to regulate American industry.
But how much more?12:00 AM, Apr 20, 2012 • By ADAM J. WHITE
Last week, a federal judge in Washington issued a truly extraordinary opinion. Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, went out of her way to challenge one of bedrock achievements of the 20th Century liberal legal establishment: the de-emphasis of economic rights, relative to other "fundamental rights," as a matter of constitutional law. Judge Brown's opinion already has sparked controversy, and it deserves closer scrutiny.
Needless fretting today kills innovation tomorrow. 11:47 AM, Jan 29, 2012 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
At Forbes, David Shaywitz has a column on why excess medical regulation is harmful, and it's one of the best things I've read on the topic:
It's not that our labor force isn't cheap enough. It's that government is too big. 5:12 PM, Jan 27, 2012 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
Bloomberg recently ran a great series on the challenges to expanding America's manufacturing sector that's worth reading in light of the president's State of the Union rhetoric on jobs. It opens with this distressing anecdote:
The costliest regulation you’ve never heard of. Jan 23, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 18 • By IKE BRANNON and SAM BATKINS
There are a number of pricey regulations that have received attention of late: net neutrality, new ozone standards, countless regulations stemming from the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill. These rules typically garner a mention in the Wall Street Journal, a formal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review, and, in some cases, a lengthy Regulatory Impact Analysis.
11:16 AM, Oct 29, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
Maria Bartiromo asks Nancy Pelosi a few pointed questions on the oppressive regulatory environment. The minority leader says she has no problem with the National Labor Relations Board's decision to tell Boeing it can't build a factory in South Carolina:
8:08 AM, Sep 1, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
An op-ed in one of President Obama’s hometown papers, the Chicago Sun-Times, highlights the 4,257 new regulations that his administration currently has in the works (219 of which will cost at least $100 million apiece, annually). The op-ed draws particular attention to one specific regulatory effort: the Environmental Protection Agency’s backdoor attempt to impose cap and trade.