We have a regulation problem, not a revenue problem

posted at 8:41 pm on July 6, 2011 by J.E. Dyer

Pace my colleague Jazz Shaw, who on 6 July defends the proposition that we have a revenue problem, I say we don’t.  Our problem today is a regulation problem, and until we fix that, tinkering with tax rates will only make things worse.

It should go without saying, but I’ll say it again, that increasing tax rates does not produce a commensurate increase in revenues.  The truth about tax rates is that raising them produces a less-than-proportional increase in revenues, whereas lowering them produces a greater-than-proportional increase in revenues.  Tax rate changes do not produce a one-for-one change in revenue levels, period.  Arguments are usually made as if they do, but history demonstrates otherwise.  You cannot solve a public debt problem by raising tax rates.

The chief reason for this is that people change their economic behavior when tax rates change.  An excellent way to discern this effect is through the tool falsely referred to as a “tax subsidy.”  There is no such thing as a “tax subsidy.”  There is only a “tax break.”  Oil companies get tax breaks on drilling leases; they do not receive subsidies.  It is important to understand this and not to buy into the false proposition that a tax break is a subsidy.  And an important aspect of that reality is that the imposition of a tax is a cost added to production from outside the intrinsic production process – and it is passed on to the customer.

When government imposes a tax, it makes the product cost more, and the customer therefore has to pay more.  When government gives producers a break on the tax, that reduces the cost of the product, and the customer pays less for it.

Eliminating the tax breaks for drilling leases will cause the price of gas at the pump to go up.  It will also cause the prices of everything else made from a barrel of oil to go up.  This in turn will depress the economic activity that would have been more robust at the lower price point – and that depresses revenues for the government.

A similar principle is in operation with regulation.  The more there is, the greater the costs added to all economic activity.  All regulation imposes a cost.  There is no such thing as regulating without increasing the cost of a process.  We consider some amount of regulation to be necessary; there may be libertarian arguments against using a priori regulation to achieve the effects we desire, like unpolluted rivers and clean air, but in general, our society has agreed to the proposition of a priori regulation (rather than, for example, leaving all such issues to lawsuits among property owners).

But whether we favor specific regulations or oppose them, they all add costs.  In many cases, they go further and prohibit outright certain kinds of economic activity.  The overall effect of regulation is to discourage economic activity.  No argument can be made that regulation has any encouraging effect on the economic activities on which everything else hinges:  production, transportation, and sales.  Regulation serves in every case – every case – to make it cost more to produce, transport, and sell.

If a government wants revenues to increase, its best option by far is to let production, transportation, and sales increase, and the people prosper.  To a limited extent, government can encourage production, transportation, and sales by arranging for infrastructure like roads and sewage, which private individuals and businesses use in common.  If government is functioning properly, the reliable maintenance of law and order, respect for property, and a national defense ensures against obstacles to commerce.  But government’s main effect on commerce is routinely a discouraging one, because governments are so prone to enlarging the scope of regulation.

It ought to be obvious to us today that regulation is depressing commerce, and therefore revenues for the government.  There are wildly obvious examples like the hundreds of miles of coastline off which we prohibit drilling for oil and gas.  There are less obvious examples like the effects of freon licensing (minor) and disabled-access regulations (major) on small businesses.  Even when such regulations don’t drive small proprietors out of business, they force price increases – and they slice into profits and investment, and therefore depress the prospects for revenue.  They also increase the entry price for small businesses, guaranteeing that fewer will get started, fewer will make a go of it, and more sectors of the economy will be less subject to competition and innovation – the mighty engines of revenue generation.

What we need today is a regulatory version of what Reagan did with taxes.  (Reagan also lifted some important regulatory restrictions, of course.)  California, for example, could close much of its budgetary gap with breathtaking speed and efficiency if it merely did three things:  opened up its coast for offshore drilling; eliminated its alternative-energy policies; and favored delivering water for human use over actively preventing its delivery.  Even California’s mind-blowing pension obligations could be met if the state would also change its litigation environment, its posture on workplace regulation, and its practice of implementing virtually all regulatory policies by enthusiastically imposing costs on business.  The average person in California doesn’t even know that 90-plus % of regulations have been imposed; all he knows is that things keep costing more and more, and businesses keep pulling up stakes and moving elsewhere.

Across America, regulatory policies are actively inhibiting the economic activity that produces revenues for the government.  The only way to change that is to lift the burden of regulation.  Raising tax rates will merely exert an upward pressure on consumer prices, and drive private money away from the taxable categories that strengthen the economy.  Lightening the burden of regulation, however, will unleash the economy to produce, sell, and deliver significantly increased revenues to the government – without raising tax rates.  Oh, and it will also reduce government spending.  Regulating less means government spending less, on regulators and their infrastructure.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

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

I love watching reasoned debate in the Green Room.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I love watching reasoned debate in the Green Room.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM

LOL!!! Irony winner of the day!!! Yay for you MC!!

KMC1 on July 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM

a regulation is a hidden tax. and has the effective tax rate of 100%

unseen on July 6, 2011 at 8:48 PM

There is a term for a Democrat opposed to more burdensome regulation; Republican.

barnone on July 6, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Excellent post, J.E. Dyer, but I would have expounded on the impact of raising the barrier of entry into a market more philosophically. Capitalist theory assumes no barriers of entry at all, and therefore the more (and higher) barriers you place on entry into a market, the less capitalistic that market will be, by its own theory.

Scott H on July 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Thank you… Nice post J.E… I can tell you first hand, that over regulation has brought about much harm to the industry my wife and I both make our living in. It has long been my belief that new regulations have more to do with creating work for lawyers and accountants than anything else. Lawyers run our country, create what they need to fill their pockets with little or no regard for anything/anybody else.

Keemo on July 6, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Add to this the degree of uncertainty that business (and those planning to start a business) see in the current climate. In one way, there’s a sense of the certainty that there will be yet more regulation.

What we need is a rollback of regulations, and something that imparts a sense that we’re moving away from restrictive regulations. That will spur startups, and investment.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM

What we need is a rollback of regulations, and something that imparts a sense that we’re moving away from restrictive regulations. That will spur startups, and investment.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM

So true…

Keemo on July 6, 2011 at 8:57 PM

We have a spending problem also. Take away the tax uncertainty and excessive regulations, and you’ve got a the ideal mix for private business growth

Kini on July 6, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Start ups have enough problems without being yanked around by gubment.

seven on July 6, 2011 at 8:59 PM

What is this Jazz Shaw that you speak of…?

d1carter on July 6, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Keemo on July 6, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Thanks; I cheat (a little.) I work as a metrologist, and I go to something north of 100 different manufacturing facilities a year.

When nearly all of your customers tell you the same thing, you can bank on it!

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:01 PM

We don’t have a regulation problem nor a revenue problem we have a TAX/Big government problem.

unseen on July 6, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I love logic.

Another good one, J. E. Dyer.

Speaking of regulation, this part of the nation (Southwest Virginia, along with the neighboring coal-producing regions in KY and WV), has recently, finally, made somewhat of a comeback from the economic devastation that UMWA excesses inflicted on the industry in our area back in the late ’70s through the ’80s. Since January, ’09, this trend has come to a screeching halt, and the business is hitting the skids again; this time thanks to the odious over-regulation coming from several of this administration’s agencies departments tentacles.

Executive ‘legislation’ by fiat is reason enough in my mind to impeach this lawless president, who is, after all, supposedly a constitutional scholar.

He may know the Constitution; he sure as sin doesn’t respect it.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Moving to the specific; I recommend that snob zoning regulations and wetland restriction be rolled back to 1980 levels, until housing starts are equal to 2005 levels. Also, fully income qualified borrowers should be able to get low-down-payment loans. These things will stimulate housing starts.

While we are suggesting concrete things; a robust policy of drill/mine/frack wherever the supply is, combined with adding refinery capacity (with fast-tracked permits) will create both construction and permanent jobs.

OK, fellow HA posters: what else should we do?

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Lightening the burden of regulation Getting Obama out of the White House, however, will unleash the economy to produce, sell, and deliver significantly increased revenues to the government – without raising tax rates.

FIFY

Connie on July 6, 2011 at 9:11 PM

OK, fellow HA posters: what else should we do?

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Get rid of all of the unnecessary, redundant, wasteful, and inefficient federal agencies, bureaus, departments, etc.

DOWNSIZE Uncle Sam until he can get in his britches without taking out a loan for a can of Crisco.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:16 PM

We don’t have a regulation problem nor a revenue problem we have a TAX/Big government problem.

unseen on July 6, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Did you read the post? Regulation=Big Govt

darwin-t on July 6, 2011 at 9:17 PM

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Specifics, jim, specifics…

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Still not sure if this is satire…

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Still not sure if this is satire…

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Expand on this.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Lawyers run our country, create what they need to fill their pockets with little or no regard for anything/anybody else.

Keemo on July 6, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Still not sure if this is satire…

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 9:18 PM

And this is what future lawyers think of the feeling of the American worker.

darwin-t on July 6, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Specifics, jim, specifics…

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:17 PM

That’ll take some time. I’ll get back to ya on that one, but probably not all that soon.

One thing that immediately comes to mind is removing the idiotic restrictions caused by the Endangered Species designation. These things should be done on a case-by-case basis by Congress, not by a bunch of liberal bureaucrats with no skin in the game.

For starters. Another thing would be to reduce the federal footprint all over education in America. Eliminate the whole Department of Education and Political Correctness.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:24 PM

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Great ideas, both; these are the specifics that we need.

Anybody else?

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Also, turn the Bureau of Land Management into the Bureau of Divesting Valuable Property in order to pay down our unholy debt. Some national parks are a fine thing, but the federal stranglehold on land use is a huge impediment to commerce and economic development.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Given the time, I could go on for days and barely make a dent.

We must start somewhere, however, or we’ll end up being the once-great USA.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM

He’s not wrong… take a regulation that was fairly popular… the smoking ban.

Congratulations, this didn’t cost a thing, free regulation.

http://www.tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Evans%20Report%20Summary%20%28Canada%29.pdf

After the imposition of the smoking ban, sales at bars and pubs were 23.5% lower in Ottawa, 18.7% lower in London, 24.3% lower in Kingston, and 20.4% lower in Kitchener, than would have been the case with no smoking ban.

Ok, so slightly over 20% loss in all revenue, and therefore all taxes from bars… no worries.

We’ll just raise your property taxes 1% to cover the shortfall and everything is fine.

Or we could cut spending, HAHAHA… why aren’t you laughing? Must just be a politician joke.

Anyhow, do you remember that ballot initiative? “Proposal to end smoking in private businesses and raise all property taxes 1% to cover lost revenue”?

oh, they ignored the cost, and if asked said the cost would be negligible?

Does the story make more sense with an example? Or is crr6 still confused?

gekkobear on July 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM

And this is what future lawyers think of the feeling of the American worker.

darwin-t on July 6, 2011 at 9:21 PM

I still don’t get that.

When we catch a fireman setting fires on purpose to make his job look more important and give the other firefighters something to do; we put his butt in jail and damn well punish him for those actions.

But when we catch a lawyer writing laws…

** stolen from a comment I read a few weeks ago, sorry, forgot whose **

gekkobear on July 6, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Also, turn the Bureau of Land Management into the Bureau of Divesting Valuable Property in order to pay down our unholy debt. Some national parks are a fine thing, but the federal stranglehold on land use is a huge impediment to commerce and economic development.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Stranglehold, you say?

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:31 PM

When government gives producers a break on the tax, that reduces the cost of the product, and the customer pays less for it.

Isn’t that what a subsidy does too?

JohnJ on July 6, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Still not sure if this is satire…

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Color me shocked.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Guys I knew who shipped whole plants to Mexico mentioned labor costs in passing then quickly went to the lack of OSHA, the EPA, the NLRB… you get the idea.

IlikedAUH2O on July 6, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Expand on this.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Seriously, I’m not sure if this was meant to be a satire or not. If someone told me to write a parody of conservative thought it’d look very, very similar to this. I actually laughed out loud more than once.

So well done, J.E. Dyer.

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Stranglehold, you say?

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I don’t even have to click to know what this must be. I love the Motor City Madman; I saw him in Johnson City, TN once upon a time.

He came swinging in a la Tarzan to start the madness… late 70′s I think.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM

IlikedAUH2O on July 6, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Yup. The first move (out of the high-labor-cost Northeast, for example) into the south, was primary labor-cost related. The next wave (Mexico, Caribean, and now China,) has lots more to do with regulatory relaxation. Which means we’d actually be greener if we found ways to create manufacturing opportunities here.

I recommend freedom. It will fix things.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:38 PM

OK, fellow HA posters: what else should we do?

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:09 PM

I recommend flooding the offices of all elected officials with this statement, signed by “Publius”:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

BobMbx on July 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Boston MA, 1980. Two weeks after moving out of my parents house, and into my own apartment. (First of my crew to move out – you can imagine what that apartment became!)

Damn, Nugent can blow the roof off!

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Raising tax rates will merely exert an upward pressure on consumer prices, and drive private money away from the taxable categories that strengthen the economy.

That really depends on which tax rates you raise, business vs consumer.

Across America, regulatory policies are actively inhibiting the economic activity that produces revenues for the government.

Is that really what’s holding American job growth back in today’s era of global competition? Many countries, such as Germany, have far more onerous and restrictive regulations yet more robust economies with lower rates of unemployment. I fear the problem and solution are far more complicated than often-repeated talking points.

bayam on July 6, 2011 at 9:46 PM

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM

And, this may be the best Beatles cover evah!

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Is that really what’s holding American job growth back in today’s era of global competition? Many countries, such as Germany, have far more onerous and restrictive regulations yet more robust economies with lower rates of unemployment. I fear the problem and solution are far more complicated than often-repeated talking points.

bayam on July 6, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Then I suggest that you isolate the problem, and offer a solution, if you think you know better what holds us back.

Any ideas? or, just more obfuscation?

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:51 PM

There is no such thing as a “tax subsidy.” There is only a “tax break.”

How many Libs have bought into this?

ericdijon on July 6, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Anybody else?

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:26 PM

How about they just roll back the Federal Register to Jan.19, 2009. That would be a good start.

JimK on July 6, 2011 at 10:05 PM

OK, fellow HA posters: what else should we do?

Medicaid and education need to be exclusively state responsibilities. No federal bribery for serving broccoli instead of french fries and the state free to administer health care to its own constituency as it sees fit. I’m also a big fan of privatizing the student aid industry; the federal government is ruining higher ed the same way it has destroyed lower ed with its stupid requirements.

CantCureStupid on July 6, 2011 at 10:13 PM

How about they just roll back the Federal Register to Jan.19, 2009. That would be a good start.

JimK on July 6, 2011 at 10:05 PM

That’ll help!

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Enact a law to quantify the potential change in GDP of every Federal regulation that has been enacted since 1988. Every one that has a negative GDP effect (positive effect if it gets repealed), gets struck. Make this effective by one year after new administration inaugurated.

Make Congress legislate everything up from that, with a mandatory sunset clause of 4 years.

PS – Anybody else have the same reaction I did to 112th Congress is least effective because they passed fewer laws??? – Great, keep it up.

Jimmy Doolittle on July 6, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Additionally, this country needs a wake-up call about disability. Being rude and obnoxious and lacking social skills is not a disability. Your inability as a parent to discipline and raise your child properly does not mean your child is disabled, although it may mean that your useless ass should be in jail. Alcoholics, drug abusers, and other victims of their own behaviors and piss-poor choices are not disabled either. That particular safety net needs to vanish.

CantCureStupid on July 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Is that really what’s holding American job growth back in today’s era of global competition? Many countries, such as Germany, have far more onerous and restrictive regulations yet more robust economies with lower rates of unemployment. I fear the problem and solution are far more complicated than often-repeated talking points.

bayam on July 6, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Well, for one thing, Jugeared Jesus spent all of the money, including the pretty-colored imaginary future money.

Germany is in a unique position in a unique time in European history. They are the vendor for the EU, similar to China’s position vis a vis the US.

Don’t get me wrong. Germans have historically had an admirable work ethic; something you liberal deadbeat shits can’t fathom.

Another thing that has aided Germany’s robust recovery (remember where they were economically after The Wall fell?) is the fact that they had leadership who faced reality and made unpopular changes, to the betterment of all.

I liked it better when you kept your amazing insight to yourself, or at least way the hell away from where I might accidentally read it (and puke).

Nighty night, Bayam bayam.

Maybe if your good, Barney and Betty will let you play outside tomorrow!

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 10:46 PM

@massrighty:

Have you ever seen the vid of Terrible Ted w/ Billy Joel rocking out Stranglehold?

I thought I had it bookmarked, but I guess I fell victim to the computer-sharing demons. I searched for it diligently, but couldn’t seem to find the right parameters (or it’s been pulled by, as the libs would call it, Big Music.)

We need more of this: asking the hard questions and then analyzing the answers… then rinse and repeat.

The more that people learn about what is happening to our nation, the more I gain hope that we can reverse this downward slide toward the failed ideas of the European mold.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Jimmy Doolittle on July 6, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Ooh, I like that one.

bayam

Still waiting for something specific and constructive from you.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 11:23 PM

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Never seen that one; will have to search it up – thanks – you pick winners every time!

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 11:25 PM

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Well, there’s always this little gem.

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Still waiting for something specific and constructive from you.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I must have missed all of your specific and constructive posts.

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Oh wait, there was this:

What we need is a rollback of regulations, and something that imparts a sense that we’re moving away from restrictive regulations. That will spur startups, and investment.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Insightful!

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Jazz Shaw is dead to me.

Jaibones on July 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM

I must have missed all of your specific and constructive posts.

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Yes, you did, upthread here, and on other posts. But, you did cherrypick part of what I said, just so you could be dismissive.

Pop quiz, embryonic lawyer; have you ever made and sold a product? You might glean some useful insights if you do.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Commerce Clause, by God.

/cur666

hillbillyjim on July 6, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Yes, you did, upthread here, and on other posts. But, you did cherrypick part of what I said, just so you could be dismissive.

In my defense, I usually skim past your posts because they’re stupid.

Pop quiz, embryonic lawyer; have you ever made and sold a product?

Yes! What do I win?

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Yes! What do I win?

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Continued contempt. But thanks for playing. As to the stupidity of my posts, you, and everyone else who goes by crr6 on this blog, think me stupid. I can live with that.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 11:49 PM

night, all; time to turn in.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 11:59 PM

When government gives producers a break on the tax, that reduces the cost of the product, and the customer pays less for it.

Isn’t that what a subsidy does too?

JohnJ on July 6, 2011 at 9:31 PM

No. A subsidy artificially transfers money from a third party uninvolved in the production process, to mitigate the costs of the process to the producer.

Merely lifting a tax does not equal subsidizing something. If the government reduces your tax rate from 10% to zero, is it subsidizing you? No. And it isn’t subsidizing a business when it lifts a tax either.

J.E. Dyer on July 7, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Then I suggest that you isolate the problem, and offer a solution, if you think you know better what holds us back.

massrighty on July 6, 2011 at 9:51 PM

First, stop blaming the government and ask individuals to take responsibility for the lack of skills that today’s high growth industries require. Pressure your kids to pursue careers in ‘boring’ fields such as engineering that will make the country more competitive. The US isn’t going to alter the headwinds of trade with China or Germany simply by reducing regulations, even if many regulations should be relaxed or eliminated.

Second, face the real, structural problems underlying the financial system, which to this day threaten to bring our economy to the brink. Wall Street remains far too free to pursue short-term economic rewards that place the entire system in jeopardy over the long-term. Restore the bedrock of free markets- transparency- to all facets of our financial system. Bloomberg – BusinessWeek recently covered this issue in great depth:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_19/b4227060634112.htm

bayam on July 7, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Spot on JE.

AH_C on July 7, 2011 at 12:18 AM

It’s also true that regulations invariably result in more taxes and therefore more real subsidies. Example: regulate the air quality. The regulators must be hired, therefore taxes must be imposed to pay the regulators, which is a transfer of monies from the regulatees to the regulators = subsidies to them.

This implicitly grows gubmit. And drives up costs to those who may “benefit” from the regulations as well as those that may not (regulating brocoli production would be an example of my taxes supporting a product’s regulation I do not use nor benefit from because the brocoli alone would not be taxed at a level sufficient to regulate it, other monies would utilized from other tax sources to make up the tax revenue disparity; yes there would be one, there always is).

Robert17 on July 7, 2011 at 5:36 AM

I was in the sign business when the Americans with Disabilities Act became law. To this day it forces businesses who never had a blind customer ever enter their establishments pay ten times as much for ADA-compatible signs as they would otherwise because of the difficulty and specialization required to produce raised lettering and Braille signs over simple vinyl-on-plex (or other type) signs. And that’s just door signs. Imagine what that idiot legislation did to the cost of providing access in all other areas for blind, wheelchair-bound, etc. It’s ridiculous that I have to assert that I am not anti-handicapped, but there it is. The fact is that imposing huge additional costs on business to look compassionate to far less than one percent of that business’ clientele is stupid, plain and simple.

SKYFOX on July 7, 2011 at 7:29 AM

It is amazing what kind of government you can afford when the economy is booming. Too bad the democraps see destroying the economy as part of their goals.

Slowburn on July 7, 2011 at 7:36 AM

BTW, Congress intentionally left much of the ADA vague with the understanding that the courts would hash it out and fill in all the blanks eventually. Now that’s some smart lawmaking there, yesiree Bob.

SKYFOX on July 7, 2011 at 7:39 AM

We have a regulation problem, not a revenue problem.

No. What we have here is………….a failure to communicate.

Namely that assclown DOTUS Obama here is not listening to what is really going on with the economy, as frigging usual!

pilamaye on July 7, 2011 at 7:40 AM

No. What we have here is………….a failure to communicate.

Namely that assclown DOTUS Obama here is not listening to what is really going on with the economy, as frigging usual!

pilamaye on July 7, 2011 at 7:40 AM

That conjured an image of Strother Martin standing over a shackled and sweaty Barack Obama on a chain gang. Thanks for that.

SKYFOX on July 7, 2011 at 7:54 AM

But government’s main effect on commerce is routinely a discouraging one, because governments are so prone to enlarging the scope of regulation as T Sowell says in his book “Economic Facts and Fallacies” these new terms [i.e. regulations] preclude some terms that would otherwise be mutually acceptable to the parties themselves. With fewer terms now available for making transactions, fewer transactions are likely to be made.

So looking at the issue from the most basic element of commerce, the transaction, Dyer’s point is irrefutable. Limit transactions and you depress commerce. Not that you needed any help, Dyer, but a quote from T Sowell is always good.

beselfish on July 7, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Not that you needed any help, Dyer, but a quote from T Sowell is always good.

beselfish on July 7, 2011 at 8:29 AM

That’s like a priest getting an attaboy from the pope.

Extrafishy on July 7, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Seriously, I’m not sure if this was meant to be a satire or not. If someone told me to write a parody of conservative thought it’d look very, very similar to this. I actually laughed out loud more than once.

So well done, J.E. Dyer.

crr6 on July 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM

And if someone told me to demonstrate what it looks like to be condescendingly smug while also being simultaneously unable to actually articulate a coherent argument (IOW parody the stereotypical liberal mentality) well, I honestly don’t think I could have done it this well.

So, bravo, crr6! You’ve actually outdone yourself!

BlueCollarAstronaut on July 7, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Wall Street remains far too free
bayam on July 7, 2011 at 12:16 AM

It’s always enlightening when a liberal takes off his mask.

fossten on July 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM

… a quote from T Sowell is always good.

beselfish on July 7, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Words to live by. :-)

J.E. Dyer on July 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM