Video: Would-be entrepreneurs face an uphill climb

posted at 4:15 pm on February 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

That companies ever ask the government for help to create demand for their product might itself be the best indicator that the regulatory state has grown too large. At a time when little incentive to take risks exists because regulators stand ready to punish every attempt at entrepreneurship, it must be especially tempting for business leaders to ask the government for a guarantee of success through subsidies. If we want businesses to stop seeking favors from the government, then we’ve got to reduce the favors government is able to grant — both before and after the creation of a company. That necessarily involves a reduction in the regulatory state.

This new video from Sen. Jim DeMint’s office vividly portrays the burden any would-be entrepreneur and employer has to bear — and reminds viewers that we should be pushing for fewer regulations on the front end of job creation rather than more subsidies on the back end.


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

Romney has said repeatedly that regulations help businesses.

astonerii on February 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Even when they make it uphill…the gobbermint makes it tough sledding once they have made it.

KOOLAID2 on February 2, 2012 at 4:23 PM

“We have to get the politician’s junk off Sam’s back.”

-Begin NSFW Barney Frank joke-

roy_batty on February 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Romney supports regulations because it is what makes big business ever bigger. A large business has economy of scale when it comes to regulation, and a small business is harmed significantly, particularly when they expand and start hitting the regulations that have a floor size of company before they apply to them. This feeds the big business, as the small businesses have four possible outcomes.
Stay small and avoid the tiered regulatory net, but be more succeptable to business cycles and never really obtain their potential leaving the consumer without.
Expand and hope they survive the tiered regulatory net.
Go out of businees.
Be bought out or forced out by a bigger company that uses the regulations to enforce as close to a monopoly as they legally can.

So of course Romney thinks that regulation is good for companies, it was for Bain. Is he really the guy we want running the country?

astonerii on February 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Romney’s support for Federal Minimum wage increases kills small business and entrepreneurship.

portlandon on February 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Yeah. Just try opening a lemonade stand.

davidk on February 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Is he really the guy we want running the country?

astonerii on February 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

No.

davidk on February 2, 2012 at 4:41 PM

hahaha ‘”ongress’ Junk on my back.” it feels to me as if they stuck their junk somewhere else

monttybaggs on February 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Is there a point to this? There’s no information beyond broad strokes of the country’s indebtedness. And this affects an entrepreneur how? Which regulations are burdensome or unnecessary? No, let’s avoid any specifics, just reinforce the conservative (big corporate) fantasy that regulation is strangling business, and until we stop forcing companies to be responsible, they’ll be unable provide jobs. Garbage.

Constantine on February 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM

So this video really is just going to totally ignore the fact that taxes are at historic lows while harking back to a non-existent time when taxes were lower?

Typhonsentra on February 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM

astonerii on February 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You mean when Governor Romney signed and enacted the first ever “CO2 as a pollutant” bill, thereby shutting down power plants in Massachusetts he did it to help the power industry – but in other states?

That’s the kind of leadership he will bring to the Presidency – importing jobs through regulations.

batterup on February 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Constantine on February 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM

You just proved you have no idea what it takes to run a business
these days. Anyone who has actually ever been in business already knows the answers to the rhetorical red herring questions you just posted.

dentarthurdent on February 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM

All businesses are created for the main purpose of making money and keeping it. Even non-profits are purposed to make money to later be handed out to the recipients their cause has chosen. If govt makes it too hard for businesses to make money and keeping it, they will cease to exist or relocate to a better business climate.

It’s business 101. Contrary to unicorn philosophy, businesses have no moral obligation to do anything other than that. Business owners, may it be sole proprietors, family owned, or share holders in public companies really truly only have an obligation to maximize their returns. Anything else is up to the goodness of their hearts. They actually don’t owe anybody anything else.
The sooner our govt understands that, and stays out of the way, the sooner our economy will rebound.

NapaConservative on February 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM

NapaConservative on February 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Bingo!!! Winner.

dentarthurdent on February 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I’ve owned my own business for over 35 years. We have purposefully stayed small in order to avoid a lot of this “junk”. (That includes hiring people.) Fortunately, our spouses have access to health care at their real jobs, so we can join their plan. If not for that, I might just say screw it, and get me some of that Obama Money™.

Jeffster on February 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

You just proved you have no idea what it takes to run a business
these days. Anyone who has actually ever been in business already knows the answers to the rhetorical red herring questions you just posted.
dentarthurdent on February 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM

In fact I own two businesses, and have for over 10 years. I’ve never run into any burdensome regulation. My companies don’t pollute or affect the food supply. If you feel oppressed just because your company has to endure some scrutiny in order to not make the rest of us sick, then you should get into another line of work.

Constantine on February 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Is he really the guy we want running the country?

astonerii on February 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

No.

But he is still the substanially lesser of two evils if it’s him or Obama.

iurockhead on February 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

…….The sooner our govt understands that, and stays out of the way, the sooner our economy will rebound.

NapaConservative on February 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Don’t hold your breath on that one.

iurockhead on February 2, 2012 at 5:43 PM

In fact I own two businesses, and have for over 10 years. I’ve never run into any burdensome regulation. My companies don’t pollute or affect the food supply. If you feel oppressed just because your company has to endure some scrutiny in order to not make the rest of us sick, then you should get into another line of work.

Constantine on February 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

IF what you say is true (and I doubt it) – what type of business?
There’s a big difference between being a self-employed accountant and having any kind of manufacturing or machine shop type of business. I know people who have shut down businesses because they could no longer afford to keep up with government mandated documentation, audits, inspections, regulation and such. There are many who are able to keep going, but the cost is high and getting higher in time, effort and profit.

dentarthurdent on February 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM

So this video really is just going to totally ignore the fact that taxes are at historic lows while harking back to a non-existent time when taxes were lower?

Typhonsentra on February 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Tax revenues are low. Because the economy under 0 is sucking wind. Tax rates are not at historic lows.

Quit swallowing the Dem talking points, they ain’t good for you, son.

iurockhead on February 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Is there a point to this? There’s no information beyond broad strokes of the country’s indebtedness. And this affects an entrepreneur how? Which regulations are burdensome or unnecessary? No, let’s avoid any specifics, just reinforce the conservative (big corporate) fantasy that regulation is strangling business, and until we stop forcing companies to be responsible, they’ll be unable provide jobs. Garbage.

Constantine on February 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I find that the biggest whiners are usually those whose businesses fail- usually for reasons of their own making. But let’s blame the government anyway. What happened to personal responsibility?

Business owners, may it be sole proprietors, family owned, or share holders in public companies really truly only have an obligation to maximize their returns. Anything else is up to the goodness of their hearts.

A Harvard poll of corporate board members at Fortune 500 companies asked a simple question: if you had the opportunity to approve the release of highly toxic chemicals into the environment with full confidence it wouldn’t be detected, how would you respond? The vast majority answered ‘approve it’, because in their minds, their sole responsibility is to maximize profits.

This is why regulations are necessary. People who suggest corporate ‘self-regulation’ as an answer are either incredibly naive or dishonest.

bayam on February 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

This is why regulations are necessary. People who suggest corporate ‘self-regulation’ as an answer are either incredibly naive or dishonest.

bayam on February 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

The point is what level of regulations, taxes and fees are really necessary, NOT whether regulations are necessary at all. There is a huge difference between setting and enforcing some basic rules vs micromanaging every aspect of a business to the point that businesses can’t survive.

dentarthurdent on February 2, 2012 at 6:02 PM

The vast majority answered ‘approve it’, because in their minds, their sole responsibility is to maximize profits.

bayam on February 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Define “vast majority”.
How about a link to prove what you say is real? Your history of commentary on this site indicates you have the ability and willingness to totally misinterpret facts, so unless you can provide proof, your statements mean nothing.

I’ve seen unethical business managers in action, so I know they exist. In my 30 year career, I have not seen them as a “vast majority”.

dentarthurdent on February 2, 2012 at 6:09 PM

What you end up with is corporations run by people who are really good at begging for government favors, greasing politician’s palms, and figuring out how to avoid taxes and regulation in the labyrinth of federal, state, and regional environments. Nowhere in there is there room for business leaders that promote innovation, efficiency, productivity, financial management, good consumer relations, employee loyalty, etc.

Socratease on February 2, 2012 at 6:17 PM

How about a link to prove what you say is real? Your history of commentary on this site indicates you have the ability and willingness to totally misinterpret facts, so unless you can provide proof, your statements mean nothing.

Pardon me sir! I didn’t intend to tread upon your feelings of self righteousness.

There’s nothing inethical about approving pollution when your only responsibility is to maximize profits. You seem to miss the point of the study. And no, I didn’t bookmark it but I’m sure it’s only one of many studies that have been conducted and are searchable on Google.

bayam on February 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Liberals have this fantasy that the government can run things at all, not to say efficiently. You give something over to the government and you might as well shoot it in the brain and be done with it.

Let’s take a quick example, one from my neck of the woods: tourism. In this area, tourism is a big industry. And so we have a Department of Tourism. There are bajillions of tourists coming through here all the time, so the system must be working, right? Not so fast.

The other day my wife and I decided that we’re educated, we’re bilingual, we know a lot about Puerto Rico, so let’s be tour guides. Which was when we ran smack dab into bureaucracy. Turns out you can’t give tours unless you’re licensed by the Department of Tourism. Turns out the office that deals with that doesn’t work there anymore, it’s over here. Then over there. Then it turns out that the Department hasn’t issued a license to be a tour guide in 5 FRIKKIN YEARS. And no promises on when they plan to do it again. Oh, and forget our concept of small tours in a car, taking people to out-of-the-way places. The smallest allowable vehicle is 14 passengers, effectively killing any chance we have of getting into the biz. Our concept doesn’t work with large groups, not to mention we don’t have the money to get a big bus. Oh, and the best part? They aren’t issuing tour vehicle license plates for our side of the island, anyway. Some bureaucrat decided it’s too saturated. When will they do it again? Well, you can find someone else who has a tour bus and buy it from them for the license plate, they told us. They’ll sell it to you for $25,000 or so.

What a joke. So how does everyone get their licenses? Well, they are connected rich corporations who pay off the right people. Liberals love to attack corporations, but they make the business environment so toxic for people who want to enter, the only businesses that can survive are corrupt monoliths that pay off, contribute to campaigns, and do pretty much what big corporations do.

JoseQuinones on February 2, 2012 at 7:10 PM

How about a link to prove what you say is real? Your history of commentary on this site indicates you have the ability and willingness to totally misinterpret facts, so unless you can provide proof, your statements mean nothing.

Pardon me sir! I didn’t intend to tread upon your feelings of self righteousness.

There’s nothing inethical about approving pollution when your only responsibility is to maximize profits. You seem to miss the point of the study. And no, I didn’t bookmark it but I’m sure it’s only one of many studies that have been conducted and are searchable on Google.

bayam on February 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM

That, bayam, was a non-answer that would have made even Bob Beckel proud.

This is an excellent example of how facts and accountability in general is kryptonite to libtards. You throw out an accusation and when you’re presented with a challenge to back up your facts you retort to a personal insult and neglect to produce any evidence.

Well played missy, well played.

NapaConservative on February 2, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Ms. Korbe needs to look up the meaning of “vivid”. Should anyone who perceives a stick figure cartoon a “vivid” portrayal of economic dynamics be worthy of our attention?

As for the Senator, I’d rather he pick sides and fight for specific conservative goals rather than waste money on worthless crap like that. When are we going to demand real victories instead of pandering and bullshit?

rcl on February 2, 2012 at 10:57 PM

In fact I own two businesses, and have for over 10 years. I’ve never run into any burdensome regulation. My companies don’t pollute or affect the food supply. If you feel oppressed just because your company has to endure some scrutiny in order to not make the rest of us sick, then you should get into another line of work.

Constantine on February 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I’m with the other poster who doesn’t believe you know what you are talking about. I run a manufacturing plant and there is not one item in the plant I can look at that isn’t super heavily regulated by the gov. We waste tons of productive time and money that could be spent creating jobs on complying with the ever growing and ever changing regulatory burden we are saddled with.

Example: You have a guy doing job X and it’s dusty or it smells bad and he wants to wear a respirator.
Without the government: Guy goes to Walmart, buys a commonly available respirator and goes about his work- breathing easy.

With the government: Sorry Guy, the gov says your company has to write and institute a Respiratory Protection Program first. You need to have a 10+ page document with a program administrator that will administer an OSHA provided questionnaire to you. Then, the business must pay to send that questionnaire, a copy of the OSHA standard, a copy of your RPP, and specify what mask you will be wearing, how much it weighs, what job you will be performing for how long, at what temperature and humidity, with what other clothing for how many times a week – to a licensed medical doctor to have them review all the info and sign a waiver that says you should be able to wear that respirator. The doc sends back the info a week later and the company can now choose whether to let you voluntarily wear a respirator. BUT it’s not over for the company OR you. You have to have a special fit test performed on your respirator and the CO will have to buy a special test kit to make sure it fits right. The company needs to have air tight bags and a storage spot for your respirator. They also need to write up training and train you to do your own fit test, and how to maintain and clean your respirator, how often. Then and only then can you do what you could have done for 10$ and in 15 minutes WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.

This is but one small frustrating example. There are thousands. Thousands of ever changing regulations that you, MR Small business guy have to keep up on and institute. Oh, what, you also have a business to run – too bad.

Free Indeed on February 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

There’s nothing inethical about approving pollution when your only responsibility is to maximize profits. You seem to miss the point of the study. And no, I didn’t bookmark it but I’m sure it’s only one of many studies that have been conducted and are searchable on Google.

bayam on February 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Also, I don’t trust that you as a home owner, won’t dump your old paint in the back yard. So, I think you need to keep a list of the paints and other hazards you have at home and that the DNR or local inspectors need to conduct periodic checks of your list, and match the list to the physical cans you have. The DNR will also need to conduct a yearly soil sample analysis of your back yard to make sure that you aren’t sneakily dumping that paint.

This is the slope you’re on; be ready.

Free Indeed on February 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I run a small start-up company. My corporate Federal unemployment tax withholding went up 37.5% for the 2011 tax return.

If you are not outraged and frightened, you are not paying attention.

sclemens on February 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Also, I don’t trust that you as a home owner, won’t dump your old paint in the back yard. So, I think you need to keep a list of the paints and other hazards you have at home and that the DNR or local inspectors need to conduct periodic checks of your list, and match the list to the physical cans you have. The DNR will also need to conduct a yearly soil sample analysis of your back yard to make sure that you aren’t sneakily dumping that paint.

This is the slope you’re on; be ready.

Free Indeed on February 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Not to mention the monthly in-home rectal cavity checks by certified EPA field operatives to ensure that you don’t try to smuggle AA batteries out of your house to be dumped at an un-approved location.

NapaConservative on February 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Free Indeed on February 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Exactly my point that libtards like bayam and constantine just don’t get – or try to ignore.

I’ve been a defense contractor for 25 years and I have seen many cases just as you detailed. Ever wonder why we used to have $400 hammers for DoD? Because for many years we could not just go to Lowe’s and buy a hammer. It had to be specially made with a ridiculous amount of testing, certification and documentation to prove that the hammer (or any other tool, system, weapon, or object) exactly meets the government’s specifications. I’ve seen computer systems whose documentation alone had to be delivered to the government by cargo plane on full pallets.

dentarthurdent on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

In my previous company, I managed research projects at the Air Force Academy. Although I was paid on commission, I was forced to pass on 2 $7M projects dealing with fatigue testing of aircraft parts because the work included hazardous materials to remove paint and coatings from the parts – and the company owner refused to risk the company on potential EPA fines if the hazmat wasn’t handled exactly correctly by properly certified people and equipment, or if there was an accident of any kind.

dentarthurdent on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

bayam on February 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Did a bunch of searches – couldn’t find any reference to any such study. Lots of studies about how ethical companies are more successful in the long run – it doesn’t pay to screw or kill your customer base or employees.
That tells me you made it up. Typical for how you argue your lib talking points.

dentarthurdent on February 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM