Video: Robinson wants Obama to explain why regulation creates jobs

posted at 3:35 pm on January 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’d love to hear that explanation as well.  The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson worries that Barack Obama’s pledge to reduce damaging and redundant legislation will give up too much rhetorical ground to Republicans, whose arguments against the encroachment of the regulatory Leviathan certainly resonated with voters in the midterms.  Robinson tells Rachel Maddow that Obama has to rebut that argument or else watch as Republicans dismantle the regulatory state (via Greg Hengler):

Maddow wisely turns Robinson away from the “regulation creates jobs” argument by recasting it as government fulfilling its mandate, but the genie’s out of the bottle by that point.  What jobs do regulations create? Well, they create lots of government jobs, certainly, which adds to the burdens shouldered by businesses and taxpayers alike.

They also create the need for compliance personnel, which sounds like a great way to stimulate private enterprise until one realizes that the costs don’t go towards production or efficiency but instead impact against both.  It makes products and services more expensive without adding any additional value — and consumers pay the price through the erosion of buying power.  Worse, businesses with high competitive pressures will shed jobs to make room for compliance costs instead of passing costs along to consumers, meaning that we’re not actually creating jobs, but merely shifting jobs from production to non-production.

So yes, we’d love to hear why more government regulation means more jobs, even though our experience over the last century has shown deregulation preceding massive upticks in job creation.  Enlighten us.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If bho said it, it is a complete total lie!
L

letget on January 19, 2011 at 3:38 PM

It creates government jobs.

ButterflyDragon on January 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Regulations creates jobs because it grows government. They have to hire someone to watch the other guy who watches the other guy who watches the other guy who watches the other guy who watches the other guy…etc.

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Regulation creates psuedo dictators, who control our everything from cradle, to grave. It empowers them, and demeans us. What could be better? The Dems seem to want this very, very badly!

capejasmine on January 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM

So yes, we’d love to hear why more government regulation means more jobs, even though our experience over the last century has shown deregulation preceding massive upticks in job creation.

I think Herman Cain already answered that question when talking to Bill Clinton … they don’t.

MeatHeadinCA on January 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Yep, that’s a winning strategy. Get democrats talking economics. Works every time it’s tried.

Skandia Recluse on January 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Because it does. That’s why.

And anyone who doesn’t know this must be a former governor of a state north of Oregon or one of her knuckle-dragging, tea-drinking, mindless, minions.

Lily on January 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Of course regulation creates jobs. You have to hire lots of new bureaucrats and inspectors, and private businesses have to hire people to see that the regulations are being followed.

For example, at our last FDA inspection, the inspector told our Blood Bank that she thought the lids on the sharps containers (hard plastic containers used to dispose of things like needles and glass) appeared to be pink instead of red. Fortunately, we didn’t get dinged on this in the report, but isn’t regulation like that what America is all about?

malclave on January 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM

It creates government jobs.

ButterflyDragon on January 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Ahhh yes… you know the sad thing is that if the GOP were serious about cutting gov’t spending, most likely more people would be unemployed simply because we already have an unhealthy level of gov’t dependent jobs…

MeatHeadinCA on January 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM

You forgot one of the most important facets to this discussion — since regulation drives costs up, prices would ordinarily go up to preserve margins…..except if you have a global economy — where prices for cars, say, span across American, European, Korean, and Japanese autos for sale in the US.

So there is certainly a prospect that regulations in the US would create jobs — in Malaysia, Japan, and Korea.

cthulhu on January 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Skandia Recluse on January 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM

It’s like the special Olympics or something.

MikeA on January 19, 2011 at 3:44 PM

OT:

I just spotted this headline on Yahoo

GOP spending cuts would affect millions of people

Low-income students may get smaller grants and the newly disabled might have to wait longer for their benefits. And just about every politician is going to get an earful from the local PTA if school aid gets whacked.

Isn’t “whacked” incendiary language? I thought we were past that.

El_Terrible on January 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Poor guy! His parents named him Rachel?!

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM

It’s simple:

1) Regulation
2) Something
3) Profit!

rbj on January 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Community Organizers make the best economists.

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Regulation creates jobs in the same way that creating a giant new federal entitlement like Obamacare reduces the deficit.

AZCoyote on January 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM

I just spotted this headline on Yahoo
GOP spending cuts would affect millions of people
El_Terrible on January 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM

It’s 1981 all over again!

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM

unfortunately a lot of big companies love regulations…that way they get to stifle their competition, especially small companies that cannot afford to comply.

right4life on January 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM

[Regulation] makes products and services more expensive without adding any additional value

In theory, at least in some cases, the regs and proper enforcement of them actually would add value — namely, reasonable assurance to consumers of product validity or safety, as certified by an unbiased enforcer.

In practice, this tends to evaporate quickly and be drowned in mission creep. For example, toy recalls are now so numerous and cover so many alleged defects — including both major problems and overzealous silliness — that I simply disregard them.

As mentioned by others, regulations grow government jobs — and that probably is Robinson’s point. I don’t think that would sell well in the current political environment, and even Obama is smart enough to sense that.

jwolf on January 19, 2011 at 3:48 PM

“We don’t think the government should be in control of all of this…!”

Obowma…

“So, what’s your point?”

Seven Percent Solution on January 19, 2011 at 3:49 PM

So yes, we’d love to hear why more government regulation means more jobs, even though our experience over the last century has shown deregulation preceding massive upticks in job creation. Enlighten us.

I agree.

This is the best community service that Eugenie Q Robinson has ever provided. Strong work champ.

ted c on January 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM

It’s simple:

1) Regulation
2) Something
3) Profit!

rbj on January 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Obamanomics = AmwayNomics or ShamWowNomics.

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Well Obama needs to be seen as doing something, anything pro business right now and this is an innocuous as it gets. I’m sure they’ll come up with something totally irrelevant to actually helping out business.

jeanie on January 19, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I’ve always enjoyed Eugene. This is no exception. He needs to be on record as much as possible.

a capella on January 19, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Madcow was heard mutterin, Why that uppity … .”

davidk on January 19, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Mr. Maddow talking to Mrs. Robinson…yeah right…

PatriotRider on January 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I think we need to build a mountain and buy Obama a robe…he can walk to the top of the mountain and then make his proclamations…that way no one dare question him.
(Don’t forget the wind machine)

right2bright on January 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM

See that condenscending look on Madcow’s face. Makes you want to reach across and smack him right in the face.

davidk on January 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM

(Don’t forget the wind machine)

right2bright on January 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM

That’s on the other side from his mouth.

davidk on January 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Difference is Robinson has the integrity to acknowledge that Obama is lying.

Obama is trying to undermine the public view that he is anti-business. He loses on credibility because the 2000 page, unread, Health Care and Investment reform act bills which he signed give government bureaucrats huge new powers and create endless bureaucracies (not to mention an ever growing army of IRS agents). The “only government” POTUS is trying to triangulate like Clinton 1.0, but has none of the charm (not to mention the Internet is a fool killer).

Angry Dumbo on January 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM

You regulate to make regular, not to control.

Obviously the government regulates to control.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Obama would almost always prefer NOT to explain squat. That way, all us goobers can assume whatever positive thing we wish he’d said. Happened during the speech in Tucson, it’s happening here.

It’s the Obama way to be vague and intentionally let voters think he said what he actually didn’t and connect dots that really have no connection.

Gobbledygook. The man is quite intentionally full of gobbledygook. If Obama’s lips move, he’s being evasive and slippery…every time.

marybel on January 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM

They also create the need for compliance personnel, which sounds like a great way to stimulate private enterprise until one realizes that the costs don’t go towards production or efficiency but instead impact against both. It makes products and services more expensive without adding any additional value — and consumers pay the price through the erosion of buying power. Worse, businesses with high competitive pressures will shed jobs to make room for compliance costs instead of passing costs along to consumers, meaning that we’re not actually creating jobs, but merely shifting jobs from production to non-production.

It boggles my mind how so many people refuse, or are unable to (bcs they are stupid), to make this connection.
I am astounded that there are Americans who are literally that stupid enough to believe that more regulation & oversight by an incompetent entity will result in business success.
If you have a moron who cannot even tie his own shoes, would you seriously consider giving him the keys to your city?
This thinking just defies all logic.
Big businesses that are in the habit of cavorting with politicians who support more regs are doing nothing more than hedging their bets in that the Govt will eliminate & reduce their mom & pop competition so that they can have a monopoly.
It is this govt behavior that has given us less choice through the promotion of mega-corporations.
They help promote them by making it so onerous & costly for the little guy to do business that the only competitors who can compete are the gigantic ones with huge amounts of power & assets.
I’m all for vertical integration, but the rise of these profoundly huge companies is bcs of the advantages they get from govt interference in the marketplace.
The govt has made it possible for only huge coporations to be successful.
I understand that a small guy can still fill a niche, but it’s like running a race uphill, in the snow, & naked on your barefeet versus a car.

Badger40 on January 19, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I’ve got one acronym for you: SOX.
Sarbanes Oxley has added more burden/cost to the business community than the world will ever know. And trust me, the cost is being passed on to the consumer.

b4itsover on January 19, 2011 at 4:27 PM

I’m thrilled that the Left is finally getting around to questioning their misinformed theories.

I’m done with “a chicken in every pot, a stoplight on every corner” politics.

beatcanvas on January 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM

What jobs do regulations create?

The estate tax is…and it isn’t a regulation. But it creates jobs. Jobs in the eeeevil insurance industry. It creates jobs selling and managing the insurance bought by those who wish to let their heirs avoid losing their businesses to predators like Warren Buffet.

JeffWeimer on January 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I’ve got one acronym for you: SOX.
Sarbanes Oxley has added more burden/cost to the business community than the world will ever know. And trust me, the cost is being passed on to the consumer.

b4itsover on January 19, 2011 at 4:27 PM

It did stop the bullshit Pro Forma annual reports from publicly held companies. And thats a good thing.

Other than that, I plead ignorance. I left the stock market over a decade ago. You get better odds (and oversight) in Vegas.

BobMbx on January 19, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Just ask Mad Dog Maddow what exactly government creates? What product does government make to stimulate the economy?

search4truth on January 19, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Regulation Justice…!

… or something.

Seven Percent Solution on January 19, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Mr. Maddow talking to Mrs. Robinson…yeah right…

PatriotRider on January 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Did you really have to say that?

Now I’ve got this image in my brain of Rachel as Dustin Hoffman and Eugene as Anne Bancroft. Anyone have a wire brush I can borrow to scrub it out?

“Are you trying to seduce me, Eugene?”

malclave on January 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Why, it creates gubmint jobs, of course.

pugwriter on January 19, 2011 at 4:56 PM

If there was a federal regulation forbidding incoherent, semi-educated loons from employment as newspaper columnists, ol’ Eugene would be holding down a gig as a burrito-folder at the local Taco Bell.

And the WaPoo and NY Slimes would be hardest hit by such a rule. I think it could be fit into the EPA rulebook somewhere….

MrScribbler on January 19, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Bottom of the barrel here. Utter dregs.

petefrt on January 19, 2011 at 5:23 PM

I’d go for a gubment program that would employee 100 people 24 hrs a day to look for BHO’s Birth Certificate.

Apparently Abercrombe needs some help.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=252833

esnap on January 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM

So yes, we’d love to hear why more government regulation means more jobs

Well don’t hold your breath waiting for Robinson to answer the question.

GarandFan on January 19, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Well, they create lots of government jobs,

When I started college back in the ’60s, I had a great history prof who like many of the adults then was a survivor of The Great Depression. When discussing the history of 20th century America, FDR’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) came up in conversation. He insisted the true meaning of WPA was, We Piddle Around. Someone observed, “everybody wants a job, but nobody wants work.” Amen.

oldleprechaun on January 19, 2011 at 5:44 PM

I don’t know who that guy is but I’m sure I’ve bought something from him. What a great salesman!

Mojave Mark on January 19, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Why do dems always want someone to tell them what to do? How to run their lives? Are they that simple minded, that they can’t think for themselves?

Mirimichi on January 19, 2011 at 7:05 PM

When I started college back in the ’60s, I had a great history prof who like many of the adults then was a survivor of The Great Depression. When discussing the history of 20th century America, FDR’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) came up in conversation. He insisted the true meaning of WPA was, We Piddle Around. Someone observed, “everybody wants a job, but nobody wants work.” Amen.

oldleprechaun on January 19, 2011 at 5:44 PM

I really love how old timers talk about how the WPA just really saved their a$$ back then.
What they fail to understand is that the entity that created the WPA is fully responsible for the Great Depression that made them depend upon the WPA.
But you can’t argue with some people. Facts escape them.

Badger40 on January 19, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Are they that simple minded, that they can’t think for themselves?

Mirimichi on January 19, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Yes.
And what’s wonderful is that even tho they fail to be successful in their own lives, they insist they know better than we do on how to run our own lives.

Badger40 on January 19, 2011 at 7:25 PM

I would just note that judging by the comments to Barack’s WSJ op-ed, readers were not fooled by his claims that he will go about reducing regulatory burdens. They were well-informed about his administration’s actions vis a vis drilling in the gulf and Arch Energy.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Wow…guaranteed troll-free thread.

Inanemergencydial on January 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM