About those job-killing regulations
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney echoes the pleas of other Republicans for Democrats to repeal job-killing regulations, get government out of the way and put America back to work.
This seems like a really good idea, though it’s not clear exactly what regulations everyone has in mind.
Environmental regulations are sometimes vaguely mentioned as bad, but which specific regulations, environmental and otherwise, should be eliminated seems not to get put into a campaign speech. So I decided to make my own list of job killing laws and regulations I’d like to eliminate.
My friends, what few of them are left after my rants, have heard my beef about state and local subsidies for professional sports. But why should the federal government give an antitrust exemption to professional baseball? Repeal this job-killing exemption, I say. Why not let any town build a stadium and start a team.
Maybe more cities would go into hock to field a team, but franchises wouldn’t be able to extort government by threatening to move to another city; franchises only have great value when their number is artificially limited.
Think about the construction jobs, the peanut vendors, parking lot attendants and ticket sales personnel jobs that would be created. Of course there would be jobs for shortstops, too. The Yankees would buy up the big talent, but they do that already.
Then I’d eliminate job-killing restrictions on marijuana. I’m not a user myself, but you’d have to be stoned not to see the market for this product. And there’s a lot of home-grown stuff already, so American agriculture could compete on a level playing field with foreign producers. (I know I’m mixing my metaphors here with the level playing field bit, but baseball was on my mind, so leave me alone.) Marijuana sales would be great for the small farmer, too, and for roadside stand sales.
Here’s another job-killing regulation to eliminate: requirements that prescriptions be written by a medical doctor. I know the difference between a cold and an allergy, and I know better than to take so much Tylenol that it destroys my liver. Why shouldn’t I be able to buy what I want in a free market. Is it really my problem if my neighbor’s kid in college overdoses on easily obtained Oxycontin?
While we’re at it, let’s eliminate licensing for doctors. Shouldn’t I be able to consult with anyone I believe has the ability to help me? Nurses could set up walk-in clinics at lower costs than medical doctors. Optometrists could likely do lasik eye surgery cheaper than opthamologists.
By now, I hope, you’re wondering if I’m kidding or serious about reducing regulations that stifle job creation, and I assure you that I am serious. The problem is that what seems like a job-killing regulation to you or me may look like an important safety or environmental protection to someone else.
And regulations that protect personal interests will be protected by special interests. Baseball team owners would balk at efforts to end the antitrust exemption. (Got the metaphor right there, don’t you think?) Hordes of Republican medical doctors would howl about efforts to end licensing regulations for their profession.
So my request to those who want to repeal regulations is to ask them to be specific. Say which specific law or regulation you want to repeal.
And then get ready for the howling, which will come alternately from both sides of the aisle.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 1 week agoGeorge. You wrote a reasonable piece. Why did you get political towards the end? Don’t you think the hordes of Democrat doctors would howl, too?
You are going to have to show how baseball’s anti trust exemption kills jobs. You indicate that keeps cities from starting teams and building stadiums. That’s not true. Topeka can start a team and build a stadium if they want. But the teams of major league baseball don’t have to play them. And besides, have you seen the ball park out in KC,K? The anti trust exemption didn’t kill the jobs created to build the park.
Mark Hastert
11 months, 1 week agoSadly we need regulation, not for the decent people who use common sense and responsibly. Wee need it because we’ve created an environment that fosters the belief that if it’s not against the regulations or law then it’s OK. Unethical behavior in business? There and many examples to demonstrate that there are always those who will engage in practices that harm others. Sell a product to you clients then secretly wager that the product will fail and lose money? Look at Wall St. Market ineffective or adulterated ” dietary supplements” to people? It’s done every day. They malefactors may be few in number but they can do enormous harm. An unguarded chicken coop will always attract wolves.
George Harris
Kansas City
11 months, 1 week agoKent, I referred to Republican doctors howling because it is primarily Republicans who are publicly howling, generally, about “job killing regulations.” However, your point is well taken, and the last line of my post indicates that the howling would come from “both sides of the aisles” , depending on the ox that was getting gored.
Repealing the anti-trust exemption would, I think, prohibit the major leagues from denying membership to new cities that build stadiums and field teams. Could be wrong about that but that was my point.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 1 week agoSadly, Mark approaches this discussion like so many from the left. He starts out “Sadly we need regulation”. That sets the debate as if we have regulations or do we not have regulations. All, or none. When that is not remotely close to the debate. I know of no conservative (even the whacko ones)who espouse the complete removal of all regulations. Yet, the left attempts to set that as the benchmark from the right. It truly gets in the way of an intelligent and helpful debate. Conservatives are not for the removal of all regulations. Conservatives are for more reasonable regulations that do not stifle economic activity so much and do not needlessly erode personal liberties. I think it is very clear that the right sees more solutions from the people in the private sector and the left sees big solutions from the federal government. Guess which contributes the most to the pile of regulations?
George Harris
Kansas City
11 months, 1 week agoPut the words Obama regulation into the Googler and look at the results. There are articles that say Obama has reduced regulations and articles that say he has introduced costly regulations. I don’t know how anyone could quickly form an opinion about which is correct. Even with several hours reading, I’m not sure I could come to a well-formed conclusion. So rather than make general statements, I’d rather ask for specific recommendations to eliminate. Until I get that response, I consider the talk about “job-killing regulations” just so much political talk.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 1 week agoGeorge, I applaud your approach. It will take me a bit to get the exact specifics. But, let’s start here. The day Obama lost on cap and trade, he said, I think this is a quote, “there is more than one way to skin a cat” (I have no idea why PETA didn’t cough up a hairball with that one). What he meant was that if he could not get what he wanted through legislation, then he would seek to get what he wanted via regulating industry through the DOE and the EPA. The new regulations have the real potential to cripple or eliminate the coal industry. Some may cheer that, but I believe coal produces 40% of our electricity.
Yes, Obama made a big announcement saying they were going to go through the books and eliminate excess regulation. Yeah, right.
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Star which was published in January, 2011. Here it is:
Obama’s End Runs Around the People
It has been reported the so-called “death panels” will become reality due to rules written by the Dept of Health and Human Services. Set aside how you feel about that counseling for a moment and look at how it happened.
Obama couldn’t get a Democrat controlled congress to enact it with legislation. He also knew he couldn’t go to the people, like Reagan did, to gain legitimacy. So, he did an end run around both congress and the people by having regulations written.
He did the same thing to regulate carbon. His Democrat congress would not pass Cap and Trade, and the people do not want it. He wrote regulations to regulate carbon anyway.
His Democrat congress would not pass Net Neutrality legislation, and the people do not want it. Even despite federal judicial ruling to the contrary, the FCC is writing regulations to do just that.
The agencies are to write regulations to implement legislation passed by Congress, not to do the biding of the sitting administration. Legislation was specifically not passed in each of these cases.
Ask yourself how comfortable you are with a president who routinely deploys these tactics to subvert the will of the people.
So, those were my thoughts then.
As far as the costs, that varies from very direct costs to indirect costs. Plus there is the regulatory and examination infrastructure that has to be maintained.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 1 week agoAnd how ironic. In an editorial of today(the one on the fountains at Crown Center), the Star actually says we are in an over regulated era. It’s true, I’m just shocked to have read it in the Star.