Regulation

You Are $13,000 Poorer Because of Federal Regulations

New study quantifies the damage to economic growth that the accumulation of regulations causes

|

RegulationEconomicGrowthDreamstimeNyul
Dreamstime: Nyul

Is America's accumulating pile of regulations slowing down economic growth? According to a new study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the answer is yes: Thanks to regulatory drag, the U.S. economy is $4 trillion smaller than it otherwise would have been.

Of course, proponents of regulations can always point to the good that the rules are supposed to do. On Earth Day, I was on a climate change panel with Avi Garbow, general counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency, and he certainly believes his agency does far more good than harm. He cited President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, which would force power plants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2030. According to agency calculations, American families would see up to $7 in health benefits for every dollar invested through the Clean Power Plan. By lowering particulate, ozone, and nitrogen oxide pollution, the EPA argues, Americans will gain the health equivalent of $55 to $93 billion annually; the yearly costs will be only $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion by 2030.

Garbow added that EPA regs don't just stop harms but spur technological innovation. He specifically cited regulations that support the deployment of renewable energy supplies, and he pointed out that there are now more jobs in the solar power industry than there are in coal mining.

Maybe. Given the great reductions in U.S. ambient air pollution that have already been achieved, epidemiologists are not all agreed that deeper cuts will bring commensurate benefits. A March 2015 study in the Annals of Epidemiology asks, "Has reducing fine particulate matter and ozone caused reduced mortality rates in the United States?" The researchers looked at trends in nearly 500 counties between 2000 and 2010 and found that "predicted substantial human longevity benefits resulting from reducing PM2.5 [particulate matter] and O3 [ozone] may not occur or may be smaller than previously estimated." A May 2014 study in Epidemiology also found no meaningful increase in cardiovascular risk among Europeans who experienced long term exposure to current levels of air pollutants. Different researchers have found otherwise. But such studies suggest that some regulatory efforts have reached the point of diminishing returns, and may in some cases impose costs that outweigh the gains.

"For each new regulation added to the existing pile, there is a greater possibility for…inefficient company resource allocation, and for reduced ability to invest in innovation," explain the Progressive Policy Institute economists Michael Mandel and Diana Carew in a 2013 regulatory reform policy memo. "The negative effect on U.S. industry of regulatory accumulation actually compounds on itself for every additional regulation added to the pile." They offer three explanations for how the growing pile of federal regulations slows economic growth. In the first, regulations act as "pebbles in the stream." Tossing a few pebbles into a stream will have no discernible effect on its flow, but the accumulation of regulatory pebbles eventually dams the river of innovation. (The development of mobile health applications, for example, has arguably been blocked by the accretion of medical privacy rules, FDA approvals, and insurance regulations.) The second explanation rests on how regulations can interact in counterproductive ways. (Think of how fuel economy standards push automakers toward lighter vehicles even as safety standards favor heavier cars.) The third focuses on "behavioral overload." As the web of regulations becomes more complex, confused managers and workers must devote more resources to compliance and away from innovation and company growth.

The Mercatus Center's new study aims to quantify the damage to economic growth that the accumulation of regulations causes. The paper refines the work of two economists, John Dawson of Appalachian State University and John Seater of North Carolina State. In 2013, the two calculated that if regulations had remained at the same level as in 1949, GDP would have been $53.9 trillion instead of $15.1 in 2011. In other words, U.S. GDP in 2011 was $38.8 trillion less than it might have been—a 2 percent annual reduction in economic growth cumulated over 56 years. In other words, federal regulations had made Americans nearly 75 percent poorer than they would have been.

Dawson and Seater's work was based on a regulatory burden index the two had developed by counting the growth in the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Mercatus researchers devised a new regulatory database that analyzes all federal regulations between 1970 and 2014, seeking to determine the magnitude of the limitations and mandates they impose on specific industries. This new RegData 2.2 database enables researchers to probe how the rules affect key decisions in particular industries, such as amounts of investment, product and service outputs, and market entry and exits. In the study, three economists focus on federal regulations aimed at 22 major industries, including oil, coal, natural gas, chemicals, machinery, metals, computers, trucking, financial, air transport, health care, and entertainment.

RegulationsDreamstimeFilmfoto
Dreamstime: Filimfoto

The Mercatus researchers cranked their data through an endogenous growth econometric model to estimate regulations' effect on entrepreneurs' investment decisions throughout the U.S. economy between 1980 and 2012. "In endogenous growth theory, innovation is not an exogenous gift from the gods but rather the result of costly effort expended by firms to realize gains," they explain. "The growth generated by that entrepreneurship can be thwarted by misguided public policy." Money and brainpower spent on compliance cannot be invested in innovative technologies, processes, and procedures that boost productivity, create new companies, and speed up economic growth.

So what did they find? "Our results suggest that regulation has been a considerable drag on economic growth in the United States, on the order of 0.8 percentage points per year," the Mercatus economists report. Noting that their estimate is a bit less than half that found earlier by Dawson and Seater, they believe that "it is still within a reasonable range, especially since their study covers a longer time horizon."

Slowing economic growth by slightly less than one percent per year may not sound like much, but it adds up over time. Consider that in 1980, U.S. GDP in real (2009) dollars was $6.5 trillion; by 2012, it had multiplied to $15.2 trillion. This implies an annual growth rate of 2.7 percent per year. If the economy had grown at a rate of 0.8 percent more—a rate of 3.5 percent—U.S. GDP in 2012 would have been $19.5 trillion instead. "The economy would have been about 25 percent larger than it was in 2012 if regulations had been frozen at levels observed in 1980," the authors say. "The difference between observed and counterfactually simulated GDP in 2012 is about $4 trillion, or $13,000 per capita."

Garbow could be right that the Clean Power Plan will yield significant health benefits. But you have to wonder how much more good health Americans might have procured had their incomes been 25 percent higher.

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

128 responses to “You Are $13,000 Poorer Because of Federal Regulations

  1. Thanks to regulatory drag, the U.S. economy is $4 trillion smaller than it otherwise would have been.

    Yes, but without it, the wrong people would be $4 trillion richer!

    1. Won’t somebody please think about income inequality!

    2. Some people ARE $4 trillion richer because of those regulations. And if Reason was anything more than a shill for the organ-grinders monkey wing of libertarianism, then they might feel the need to ask qui bono and name names. Instead they will be happy to let everyone blame their own pre-established partisan ‘usual suspects’, further the usual BS slogans-are-actually-profound-ideas, and pretend that government is run by aliens who have it in for good Americans dreaming of ‘libertarian moments’.

    3. so true.
      What would a pie chart of who this ching really benefits look like?
      Gov’t agencies = 25%
      Dying industries = 25%
      Lawyers = 50%

      1. Lee is right.
        25% “tax compliance” industry

  2. Number 1 on the list should be tax compliance costs

    1. I’m okay with cutting whatever extra funding Bailey just told us was super-important this time and that means it’s totally different.

      1. Jesus! Why don’t you just invite the Zika-infected Mexican Muslim refugees to sleep at your house, Hammy?

        1. Some of those mosquitoes, I assume, are good people.

          1. Solution: place a mosquito net wall along the southern border.

            1. “They’re not sending us their best mosquitoes, that’s for sure.”

            2. And make the damned bugs PAY for the netting!

          2. But how many of them understand that No means No when they want to stick their proboscis into you?

  3. If you said that regulations cost the US government 1.6 trillion in lost tax revenue, liberal heads would explode.

    1. ^THIS.

  4. Better health is good, but if everyone’s income was 25%, then income inequality would be greater! I, for one, would rather have people die in the streets (not me, of course, just those “other” people that I want to helpcontrol but only because it makes me think I’m better than them).

    /prog

  5. I can believe the American economy is smaller because of regulation. I’m skeptical of the firm number or the assumption that the saved money would accrue evenly across the population. Although I suspect it would benefit the poor more than the middle class, as fewer regulations would make it easier for people to start their own businesses and self-employ, or employ people in their communities.

    1. There might be even fewer poor people because they could have started their own businesses and become middle class.

    2. “Although I suspect it would benefit the poor more than the middle class, as fewer regulations would make it easier for people to start their own businesses and self-employ, or employ people in their communities.”

      That’s a big one. I used to work in sales in inner city Chicago and a lot of the businesses were clearly illegal because no one in a poor neighborhood like that is going to take time and spend money to comply with everything.

      It’s also why you see things like barber shops in poor neighborhoods getting SWAT raided for licensing non-compliance.

      1. Yep. You’ll never see a cash register or a credit card machine in a Black barber shop.

  6. Money and brainpower

    Speaking for the regulatory side, there’s not a lot of brainpower going into that.

  7. Oh, and remember folks, the precautionary principle says we shouldn’t regulate anything– because it might cause harm.

    1. Conversely, we shouldn’t deregulate anything — because it might cause harm.

  8. Given the great reductions in U.S. ambient air pollution that have already been achieved, epidemiologists are not all agreed that deeper cuts will bring commensurate benefits.

    So what does a libertarian say to someone who believes that environmental regulations are responsible for the decrease in ambient air pollution? I’ve seen it thrown around a lot about how these regulations have reduced smog levels and so on and so forth, but how can one show that they would have gone down anyways (if that’s even the case)?

    I hope I’m elaborating this properly, because it’s something that has confounded me. I can’t argue this idea without any evidence (yeah, well if there were no regulations we’d be fine anyways! It just doesn’t work).

    I’m not arguing against this point, but it’s something that has, frankly, confounded me when I’ve seen it.

    1. Well, the government decided to choose factory jobs over clean air historically so if companies were held responsible for the damages their pollution produced by the courts, we’d have a lot cleaner air. So basically, the previous regulatory environment consider pollution to be acceptable in the name of progress. Now, we’ve decided that the pollution was actually bad and instead of letting people sue over the damage pollution has done, we’ve switch to laws outlawing it. Libertarians generally want to see courts handle the issue as damages rather than government and industry collude to regulate it.

      1. That is a solution I can get behind, and fairly obvious now that I think about it. Thanks!

      2. It’s a good start, but the knock I’ve always heard is, the courts are already waterlogged. Having tens of thousands of new suits brought by people (most of whom can’t afford all the testing they would need to prove that x amount of damage came explicitly from y factory) isn’t a workable solution.

        1. It’s similar to how CA Prop 65 is enforced? most of those cases are settled out of court.

        2. The courts are waterlogged because of the war on (some) drug( using minoritie)s. End that end the judges’ dockets would be a lot lighter and they could spend their days adjudicating legitimate disputes.

    2. Even in Hong Kong, bastion of SuperCapitalism, they instituted pollution controls on the local businesses…and saw an immediate improvement (at least according to my wife’s uncle while we were visiting him there). This may be one of those few cases where there isn’t really a pure libertarian answer.

      1. I have no problem with moderate environmental protections since I don’t know how the hell you fix the problem otherwise.

        The problem I have is that the air is already very clean so additional environmental protections put more and more burden on businesses without providing all that much additional benefit to air quality.

        1. Of course you don’t want further environmental protections, because it’s minorities who are most negatively impacted by environmental damage.

          1. This is also why I coat the walls of the slums I own with lead paint and leave open barrels of mercury in the basement.

            1. You know who else hated minorities like Irish?

              1. Nobody. Nobody hates minorities the way Irish does.

          2. Serious question: are you equating minorities with poor people? And only in America or just generally?

            Less serious question: are you assuming Irish is not a minority purely because of his handle?

        2. I think a good libertarian (or just economically sensible) innovation, at least, would be to move away from control-based regulation toward pigovian taxation; just have companies pay the cost incurred by the pollution they cause, where the cost estimable. And if, after paying that public cost, it’s still profitable for the company to produce, then it should be allowed to do so.

          Also, an important point is that a lot of the pro-environmental regulations’ affects are cancelled out by economically motivated regulation (or subsidies) that promote or protect pollution causing industries, such as manufacturing industries, or agricultural subsidies. So even regarding the environment, it wouldn’t be a stretch to speculate that the government does more harm than good.

      2. “Pure” libertarian? 100% Anarchy? I pretty much assume that any given libertarian is bound to be tainted by something.

        Seriously, we aren’t against any/all regulations, just acknowledge/know that private actors and the market can and often do perform better than the government and that the vast majority of gains incurred as the result of government action are ill-gotten, transient, and/or offset by unintended consequences.

        Environmental regulations have reduced smog but smog wasn’t exactly a horrible crime to begin with and it’s not like there isn’t a market catering to environmental controls. Further, the overwhelming majority of smog components nationwide were from power plants that we relied on despite having nuclear technology.

        1. I pretty much assume that any given libertarian is bound to be tainted by something.

          I won’t use violence against you unless you initiate it against me or those I’ve decided to protect.

          NAP to the max!

      3. I thought that as soon as Hong Kong went back to the Chinese that it instantly reverted to ‘SuperCommunism’ with a dash of ‘KindaCapitalism’?

        1. Not really correct at all. The womenfolk also do not have sideways vaginas.

    3. There’s no doubt that clean air and clean water regulations helped. No doubt whatsoever. But they may have been applied and enforced differently which could lead to the same or similar outcomes that don’t create unaccountable free-roaming agencies that abuse their own regulations and end up curb stomping the population.

      1. I suppose they could be justified because the thing causing the pollution could be proven to be aggressing against your person. No doubt they’re being abused at this point (prime example: auto makers are basically being forced to make things up to meet CAFE standards).

    4. It is possible to have regulations that minimize market distortions and leave the detailed solutions up to entrepreneurs acting in a regulated marketplace. Air pollution controls are a good example of this. Cap and trade for sulphur dioxide emissions actually worked pretty well.

      1. I just don’t like giving Progs even one inch because they’ll take it and go miles, so it’s hard for me to acknowledge that any sort of regulation can be good. There’s also the fact that it will inevitably be used to crackdown on unrelated things (amateur racing comes to mind), so compromise can be difficult. Since people here seem to actually be able to give responsible answers (HA) without going through regulation overload, I asked it here.

        It does seem like a variation of the “Top. Men.” response though. If we just have a few regulations, we have to rely on the people who enforce them to not go buck wild (which we know they will). That’s another part where I get confounded. It’s also why I like the lawsuit response.

        I don’t disagree that environmental regulations can do some good, but I suppose my conditioned response is to be extremely wary of any of them.

        Of course, in a free market, people buying the products could shift their money towards those companies that make an effort to reduce their pollution output as well, so it’s not like we’d have to rely completely on the courts.

        1. Ideally, a system of clear and enforceable property rights will solve most of the problems that regulations try to solve. In some cases, such as air quality, the costs of defining and enforcing property rights are very high (though technological improvements can lower them over time). In those cases, a regulatory approach *can* be a reasonable alternative, though it depends on how it is implemented.

          Depends on how it is implemented…but won’t that power ultimately be abused, even if the original implementation is decent? Isn’t this an example of “top men” thinking they can design away human nature?

          Yes and no. I think of it like antibiotics. We’d all prefer to live in a world without harmful bacteria, but that’s not feasible, and in the end it might not actually be as desirable as we think (unintended consequences and the like). So we develop antibiotics. Eventually, bacteria will evolve and the antibiotics will become less effective. That’s an argument for prudence and learning to develop better antibiotics, not to abandon antibiotics entirely. I’m always open to better solutions, but that seems to be the best we have right now.

          Freedom isn’t a steady state of being. Freedom is an arms race.

    5. I’m reading Free Market Environmentalism right now. Based on what I’ve read so far, I recommend it.

      1. Thanks! Link saved.

    6. Unless you can work out a way to implement private ownership of the air, civil litigation will never be able to fully replace environmental regulations. Some commonses we’re stuck with, despite their potential for tragedy.

  9. As the web of regulations becomes more complex, confused managers and workers must devote more resources to compliance and away from innovation and company growth.

    That’s kind of what destroyed the Wright Brothers. The Wright Brother filed suit against Glenn Curtiss for violating their patent and then Curtiss designed another aircraft with another innovation to get around the lawsuit, forcing the Wright Brothers to sue again, which Curtiss got around by designing another aircraft to get around that lawsuit, forcing the Wright Brothers to sue again, with the result that Curtiss has aircraft with hundreds of innovations while the Wright Brother’s main innovation was to add wheels to their airplanes and they’re nearly bankrupt.

  10. “For each new regulation added to the existing pile, there is a greater possibility for…inefficient company resource allocation, and for reduced ability to invest in innovation,” explain the Progressive Policy Institute economists Michael Mandel and Diana Carew in a 2013 regulatory reform policy memo.

    Economists at the Progressive Policy Institute said that? Burn the witches!

    1. There are more progressive/environmental groups that are starting to maybe kind of warm up to the power of market forces than you might think. Of course, there are plenty that still hate markets.

    2. From what I’ve read, the Progressive Policy Institute actually has some libertarian leanings. They have published pieces advocating reducing (or even doing away with) corporate taxes. They’re not such party line towers as some of the other major left-leaning think tanks.

      1. They will be first in line for liquidation when Bernie seizes power. Internal dissent cannot be tolerated.

  11. My solution: create the Federal Bureau of Regulation to directly oversee Federal regulations.

    1. In the Department of Administrative Affairs? 😀

      1. Let me tell you, Sir Humphrey Applebee would have it all sorted out in fullness of time, with carefully measured inaction.

        1. One of the greatest documentaries on the working of government ever made.

          1. I heard recently that the writers on the show had a “mole” in the civil service feeding them information. They didn’t come up with the idea of a hospital with no patients which was later found to be true ? and not just one hospital but several ? rather, the “mole” told them about it.

            1. What is this of which you speak?

              1. Yes, Minister: “The Compassionate Society”

                After the episode was aired, six hospitals were found to be operating with no patients ? one did have a patient at one time but it was an employee who injured themselves on the job.

                Jonathon Lynn, one of the writers on the episode, used to have a FAQ on Yes, Minister on his website that went into detail, but it’s gone.

                1. This article quotes another article (again, taken off the web) on Yes, Minister:

                  Yes Minister made the driest subject possible — the minutiae of politics — into sparkling comedy.

                  No sitcom has been so thoroughly researched — it used real Whitehall insider moles to spill the beans — and meant that (unlike Richard Curtis, for example) the writers were considered a threat to national security!

                  And even Margaret Thatcher provided material for them.

                2. Oh. I thought you meant The President’s Analyst, which had the Federal Bureau of Regulation.

              2. This web page quotes Jonathon Lynn on the episode at length (and the web page is interesting in its own right):

                The basic idea of each episode came in a variety of ways… Sometimes completely out of our own imaginations. An example of the latter would be the episode on the National Health Service in which we invented a hospital with five hundred administrative staff but no doctors, nurses or patients. This hospital won the Florence Nightingale Award for the most hygienic hospital in the country. After inventing this absurdity, we discovered there were six such hospitals (or very large empty wings of hospitals) exactly as we had described them in our episode, notably one in Cambridgeshire in which there was only one patient: the Matron (head of nursing staff) who had fallen over some scaffolding and broken her leg.

    2. Why not a Secretary of the Future?

      1. Oh, and give all out jobs to people from the future? No way, not to those goobacks.

        1. they took ar jerbs!

    3. Here in New Hampshire, two children died while in the care of the Division of Children, Youth and Families. So a legislative commission was appointed to study the problem. Their recommendation: a new watchdog agency.to oversee DCYF. Beyond satire.

      1. Well, how would you do it, Smarty Pants? No, seriously, I mean what other way could an agency be overseen than by another agency? The people at large don’t have the time, it’s got to be somebody’s job.

  12. People are poor because they’re stupid, lazy, and drunk. You can’t blame the government for that.

    1. You can however blame the government for subsidizing their bad choices.

      1. Exactly. A loser has a much diminished incentive to get his shit together if he’s paid for not having his shit together.

        1. I SAID YOU CAN’T BLAME THE GOVERNMENT!

          1. Yes, sir.

            *meekly kicks the dirt*

    2. (meekly) guilty as charged.

  13. Here in my neck of the woods, they just opened up the replacement to the SR 520 bridge. Opened up late, still not technically finished, the old bridge is still there for now.

    Cost: $4.5 billion. Over budget by $375 million.
    Cost of original bridge in 1963: $21 million. Inflation adjusted – $150 million or so, depending on your assumptions. Fine, call it $200 million.

    The overruns alone should have been able to build 2 bridges and the total cost should have been enough to effectively pave Lake Washington with 2 dozen bridges.

    Also, the new bridges should be cheaper. We use computers, not an army of draftsmen, we have more automation and better machinery than in the 1960’s, and building a floating bridge over that span is not a new-fangled idea.

    I don’t know why it cost so much, but it isn’t because we don’t know how to build bridges anymore.

    1. Regulatory compliance, and the graft that goes along with it.

    2. If they’d only spent 200 million, then that’s 4.3 billion less for the shovel ready JOBZ! Why do you hate the American Working Man?

      1. Mraaaa jerrrrbzzz

  14. “According to agency calculations, American families would see up to $7 in health benefits for every dollar invested through the Clean Power Plan. By lowering particulate, ozone, and nitrogen oxide pollution, the EPA argues, Americans will gain the health equivalent of $55 to $93 billion annually; the yearly costs will be only $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion by 2030.”

    This math is such blatant bullshit that it’s amazing they ever bother opening their mouths. Do people really believe you could make such a calculation, and if so, can I have their phone numbers? I have a surplus of bridges at bargain basement prices.

    1. “According to agency calculations, American families would see up to $7 in health benefits for every dollar invested through the Clean Power Plan”

      This is hilarious because it assumes absolutely no diminishing returns whatsoever. Basically, if we spend infinite dollars we would save infinity*7 dollars and would be infinitely rich.

      Such math. Much logic.

      1. Also, does this mean that for every dollar they invest in so-called ‘clean’ energy they will reduce the tax penalty for being uninsured? DOES IT!?

      2. Not to mention ignoring the opportunity cost of that $1

    2. You have to factor in the economic multipliers. We’re talking millions of trillions of dollars here.

      1. Good. Maybe we can all have our very own pony.

    3. Linear. No. Threshold.

      A theory that should probably be sitting next to homeopathy in the text books.

  15. He specifically cited regulations that support the deployment of renewable energy supplies, and he pointed out that there are now more jobs in the solar power industry than there are in coal mining.

    Artificially, which actually sets back the development of innovative and sustainable solar power technology. When the government hands out subsidies to companies like Solyndra or whoever, to develop a certain type of solar technology, it comes at the cost of the development of technologies outside that which is subsidized.

    If the government weren’t diverting resources to the R&D of technology that requires a subsidy for it be cost-effective for consumers, there would almost certainly be a greater incentive for entrepreneurs to develop more cost-effective and therefore more productive and/or efficient solar technology. Simply put, you get more of what you subsidize, and in this case you get more subsidy dependency and inefficient tech.

    1. You know someone’s an asshole when they purposefully reduce jobs in one sector then use it as a proof that the market is making decisions.

      Especially when you consider that the supply of energy is otherwise lower than it would have been since Solar is a boondoggle in and of itself.

      1. Never fear. Your federal taxes make sure that consumers all over this great land get subsidized solar panels and electric/hybrid vehicles so they can make believe that they’re saving the world. Why don’t you want people to feel good about themselves?

  16. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  17. It bears repeating that Obama is going to likely end up being the first president in American history to not have even one single year of 3% economic growth.

    That’s unacceptable, and we can do much better. It’s time to pull the regulatory Buttplug out of our economy and let freedom flow freely through our economic intestines once again.

    1. That has to be the grossest way to explain a great idea.

      1. *gag

  18. $4T may be on the small side. I have seen estimates of 1-2% drag on growth.

    Compound that for 50-100 years and we are talking a lot more than $4T.

    Wasnt there an estimate on here sometime back that US median household income would have been over 100k?

    1. $4T/300M is about $13k per person. I think that is about 1/4th that other estimate.

  19. [Ari] Garbow added that EPA regs don’t just stop harms but spur technological innovation.

    That’s like saying choking a person spurs respiratory innovation.

    American families would see up to $7 in health benefits for every dollar invested through the Clean Power Plan.

    Provided American families don’t go hungry for lack of jobs.

    By lowering particulate, ozone, and nitrogen oxide pollution, the EPA argues, Americans will gain the health equivalent of $55 to $93 billion annually; the yearly costs will be only $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion by 2030.

    It never ceases to amaze me how people like Garbow can make those inferences as if people’s choices were limited to air vs. money. I can always MOVE out of the city if I were so concerned about ozone, NOx and lower particulates; however, regulations affect my wallet no matter where I go.

    1. Garbow is either not to bright or is pond scum.

      He specifically cited regulations that support the deployment of renewable energy supplies, and he pointed out that there are now more jobs in the solar power industry than there are in coal mining.

      We could create more jobs in construction too by banning power saws and backhoes. Idiot.

  20. “…American families would see up to $7 in health benefits for every dollar invested through”

    That’s on top of the $2500 savings on premiums Obamacare brings.

  21. Reason needs to change the name “Promoted Comments” to “Paid Propaganda Advertising”.

  22. Who promoted Ronald Garrett anyway?

    1. Who promoted Ronald Garrett anyway?

      Nobody. It is paid advertising masking as a comment. Calling it a comment is a big fat lie.

  23. I haven’t had a job in 5 years because the state of Calif. took my right to work and turned it into a privilege, and is charging a $100 “fee” to take an exam (4 hours of torture) to be a “certified” electrician in this F-ed up state. Cant work in my chosen field without the state getting a cut. So, I’ll just let the state support me.

    1. Why not split for another state? Electricians are in demand and you can make a mint elsewhere I reckon.

    2. $100 for the exam AND another $75 administration fee. Go to work for a school district, they are exempt.

    3. Surely you could’ve made over $100 over that time. Why isn’t the investment justified?

  24. What will become of Central Committee if they can’t regulate cow farts?

    White House looks to regulate cow flatulence as part of climate agenda

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03…..z47G4MJfzG

  25. not to forget the 10s of thousands of pages added to obamacare
    and decades of UNCONSTITUTIONAL Trade deals…..

  26. ” … Avi Garbow, general counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency, and he certainly believes his agency does far more good than harm.”

    Right. And isn’t his salary a part of the $4 trillion dollar expense?

  27. Interesting story. For a summary of Dawson and Seater and my interpretation, please see http://object.cato.org/sites/c…..7n4-3.pdf.

  28. I need you guys’ help:

    Someone on here mentioned a small company that makes machetes and other tools. They also sold long handles on which their blades could be mounted, resulting in a tool sort of like a pruning hook.

    What’s that company called? I want to say it started with an A, but I’m not sure…

  29. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share wiith you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.I3

    ===== http://www.E-cash10.COM

  30. All true. Government regulations benefit the “few” at the expense of the “many”. For example, prescription laws are an economic benefit to doctors in giving them a legal government enforced monopoly over access to medical drugs. On the other hand doctors are often content to let patients live in pain rather then prescribe a non-narcotic drug such as meloxicam (used for treatment of arthritis) because it reduces kidney function. The patient is not given the choice of what they would prefer. And since the drug is “prescription only”, they have no options except recourse to the “black market” (there is one for prescription drugs based outside the US). In general doctors tend to be “medical tyrants” to a point not found in the other licensed professions where there is greater “competition” and more of a free market.

  31. RE: You Are $13,000 Poorer Because of Federal Regulations
    New study quantifies the damage to economic growth that the accumulation of regulations causes

    I’m sure everyone could care less about having $13,000 more in their pocket.
    But I’m sure everyone is happy to know there is an army of bureaucrats out there who make a fortune off the taxpayer’s paychecks.
    Isn’t that worth $13,000 to have that kind of piece of mind?

    1. In answer to your question, end of post, my answer is no, but that’s just me..

  32. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  33. I would have thought more, but coming to think on it, that’s quite enough down the regulatory/bureaucratic drain.

  34. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  35. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  36. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  37. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  38. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  39. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

  40. Interesting story. For a summary of Dawson and Seater and my interpretation, please see
    short sayings
    How To Motivate Yourself

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.