Government over-regulation at all levels hurts economic development. And since the president can enact regulations with the stroke of a pen, it makes the current crop of candidates’ views on regulatory policy hugely important.
To give an idea of the potential impact, consider that President Obama has issued the most major regulations of any U.S. president, causing more than $100 million worth of economic impact and driving consumer goods prices upward.
Don’t forget, regulatory costs are passed on to the customer!
Since 2009, more than 600 major regulations have totaled $743 billion in costs – and Mr. Obama plans to issue up to 50 new regulations, bringing the total to $813 billion!
It’s not the way to grow the economy. In fact, two of the strongest periods over the last 35 years happened because of tax cuts and deregulation. I’m speaking specifically of the Reagan administration in the 1980′s and under President Clinton in the late 1990′s, when the latter deregulated banks and cut capital gains taxes.
History shows us that over-regulation is a huge drag on the economy. A George Mason University study put a number on it and it’s staggering – $4 trillion! What does that mean? Well, our GDP in 2015 was $18.04 trillion. But it could’ve been $22+ trillion without the last several decades’ worth of overburdening economic regulations.
Regulations mean expenses for businesses. It costs to comply. So there’s less funding for new plants, research & development, product innovation and so on. Bringing it back to this November, where do the candidates stand on regulation? We need more specifics on their plans, but it’s pretty clear that one candidate trumps the other when it comes to views on regulation.