If you look at the methodology behind the major measures of economic liberty, such as Economic Freedom of the World and Index of Economic Freedom, you’ll notice that each nation’s regulatory burden is just as important as the overall fiscal burden.
Yet there doesn’t seem to be adequate appreciation for the importance of restraining red tape. I’ve tried to highlight the problem with some very depressing bits of information.
- Americans spend 8.8 billion hours every year filling out government forms.
- The economy-wide cost of regulation is now $1.75 trillion.
- For every bureaucrat at a regulatory agency, 100 jobs are destroyed in the economy’s productive sector.
- A World Bank study determined that moving from heavy regulation to light regulation “can increase a country’s average annual GDP per capita growth by 2.3 percentage points.”
Unfortunately, these bad numbers are getting worse.
We start with the fact that there’s a natural tendency for more intervention in Washington because of the Obama Administration’s statist orientation.
That’s the bad news. The worse news is that this tendency to over-regulate is becoming more pronounced as Obama’s time in office is winding down.
I’ve already opined on the record levels of red tape emanating from Washington, but it’s getting even worse in the President’s final year.
Here’s what the Wall Street Journal recently wrote about the regulatory wave.
…government-by-decree that is making Mr. Obama the most prolific American regulator of all time. Unofficially, Mr. Obama’s Administration has once again broken its own record by issuing a staggering 82,036 pages of new and proposed rules and instructions in the Federal Register in 2015. …That would not only eclipse Mr. Obama’s record of 81,405 set in 2010; it would also give him six of the seven most prolific years of regulating in the history of the American republic. He’s a champion when it comes to limiting economic freedom, and American workers have the slow growth in jobs and wages to prove it. …His Administration is also in a class by itself in issuing de facto rules as “notices” or “guidance” that are ignored by businesses at their peril. …And there’s much more to come.
Amen. The WSJ is correct to link the regulatory burden with anemic economic performance.
As I point out in this interview, red tape is akin to sand in the economy’s gears.
By the way, I can’t resist emphasizing that the Nordic nations, much beloved by Bernie Sanders and other leftists, generally are more free market than the United States on non-fiscal issues.
In other words, they have a more laissez-faire approach on matters such as regulation.
Now let’s try to quantify the cost of all this red tape.
The Washington Examiner reports on some new research.
The price of the Obama administration’s regulatory burden hit just shy of $200 billion last year, or $784 million for every day his government was open for business, according to a new analysis by American Action Forum.
To make matters worse, as I noted in the interview, I very much suspect the bulk of that new regulation was not accompanied by cost-benefit analysis. So the supposed benefits will be small and the actual costs will be high.
Let’s move from the general to the specific. The Heritage Foundation has a list of the worst regulations from last year. Here are some of the highlights, though lowlights would be a better term.
- …a ban by New Jersey on sales of tombstones by churches — adopted in March at the behest of commercial monument makers.
- Certain New York restaurants now have to include warnings on their menus about the sodium content in many popular dishes.
- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration…expanded its mandate in June by declaring that businesses should allow employees to use whichever restroom corresponds to their “gender identity.”
- …the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers expanded their own jurisdiction to regulate virtually every wet spot in the nation.
And there are plenty more if you really want to get depressed.
But let’s not dwell on bad news. Instead, we’ll close by highlighting a potentially helpful bit of regulatory reform north of the border. Here are some blurbs from a story in the Washington Examiner.
…look to Canada for lessons from its experiment with regulatory budgeting. What is regulatory budgeting? It’s a process that seeks to use traditional budget concepts to better manage regulatory costs. The goal is to require government departments and agencies to prioritize and manage “regulatory expenditures,”… Regulatory budgeting imposes hard caps on departments and agencies and requires that new regulatory policies fit within their respective budgets. It may not be a silver bullet to the U.S. government’s regulatory profligacy, but with strong political leadership and a proper design, it can arrest the growth of new regulations and bring greater accountability, discipline and transparency to the process. …Departments and agencies are given a “baseline” calculation of regulatory requirements and the costs they impose on individuals and businesses, and then are expected to live within their respective budgets. This means — at least, in the case of the federal experiment — that any new regulatory requirements be offset by eliminating existing ones with equivalent “costs.” An independent, third-party panel verifies the government’s year-over-year compliance.
And it appears this new system is yielding dividends.
Over the past two years, the federal government estimates the system has saved Canadian businesses more than C$32 million in administrative burden, as well as 750,000 hours spent dealing with “red tape.” Most importantly, regulatory budgeting has gradually contributed to a more disciplined regulatory process by rewarding departments and agencies for finding lower-cost options and for making existing requirements smarter and less burdensome.
Hmmm…, maybe I should consider escaping to Canada rather than Australia if (when?) America falls apart.
In addition to this sensible approach on regulatory reform, Canada is now one of the world’s most economically free nations thanks to relatively sensible policies involving spending restraint, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic control. Heck, Canada even has one of the lowest levels of welfare spending among developed nations.
Though things are now heading in the wrong direction, which is unfortunate for our northern neighbors.
P.S. While the regulatory burden in the United States is stifling and there are some really inane examples of silly rules (such as the ones listed above), I think Greece and Japan win the record if you want to identify the most absurd specific examples of red tape.
P.P.S. Though I suspect America wins the prize for worst regulatory agency and most despicable regulatory practice.
P.P.P.S. Here’s what would happen if Noah tried to comply with today’s level of red tape when building an ark.
P.P.P.P.S. Just in case you think regulation is “merely” a cost imposed on businesses, don’t forget that bureaucratic red tape is the reason we’re now forced to use inferior light bulbs, substandard toilets, second-rate dishwashers, and inadequate washing machines.
[…] and inefficiency caused by bad regulatory policy by the […]
[…] and inefficiency caused by bad regulatory policy by the […]
[…] When I write about regulation, I usually focus on big-picture issues involving economic costs, living standards, and competitiveness. […]
[…] Government regulations on business are a tremendous burden and a costly drag on the economy. According to economist Dan Mitchell, […]
[…] Government regulations on business are a tremendous burden and a costly drag on the economy. According to economist Dan Mitchell, […]
[…] my column is about the former, I generally complain about excessive spending, punitive taxation, senseless red tape, easy-money monetary policy, and trade […]
[…] sensible policies involving school choice, welfare reform, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic […]
[…] P.S. The good news is that entrepreneurs can escape California’s red tape by moving across the border. The bad news is that this strategy doesn’t solve the problem of federal rules and mandates. […]
[…] de gastos, reforma del bienestar, reforma del impuesto de sociedades, rescates bancarios, presupuestos regulatorios, el tratamiento fiscal de ahorro, libertad para elegir la escuela y privatización del control del […]
[…] on issues such as spending restraint, welfare reform, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, school choice, and privatization of air traffic […]
[…] years ago, I wrote about how dishwashers don’t work very well because of foolish red tape from […]
[…] to economic issues (spending restraint, welfare reform, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, school choice, and privatization of air traffic […]
[…] with several issues (spending restraint, welfare reform, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, school choice, and privatization of air traffic control) in a very […]
[…] was no sprawling and intrusive administrative state imposing costly regulations that hinder the private […]
[…] routinely grouse about the heavy economic cost of red […]
[…] policies involving spending restraint, welfare reform, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic […]
[…] relatively sensible policies involving spending restraint, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic […]
[…] there should be some form of cost-benefit analysis before bureaucrats churn out new rules, and the impact of red tape on overall economic performance should be part of the […]
[…] relatively sensible policies involving spending restraint, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic control. Heck, Canada even […]
[…] When I write about regulation, I usually focus on big-picture issues involving economic costs, living standards, and competitiveness. […]
[…] When I write about regulation, I usually focus on big-picture issues involving economic costs, living standards, and competitiveness. […]
[…] When I write about regulation, I usually focus on big-picture issues involving economic costs, living standards, and competitiveness. […]
[…] We still don’t know what he’ll do on issues such as the entitlement crisis, the border-adjustable tax, infrastructure, and red tape. […]
[…] If you want some wonky analysis of regulation, I have some detailed columns here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] If you want some wonky analysis of regulation, I have some detailed columns here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] And it’s a straightforward exercise (at least conceptually) to argue that regulations should pass some sort of cost-benefit test. […]
[…] reform. And it’s unclear whether we’ll see much progress cutting back on the mountains of regulation hindering economic […]
[…] to relatively sensible policies involving spending restraint, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic control. Heck, Canada even has one […]
[…] to relatively sensible policies involving spending restraint, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic control. Heck, Canada even has one […]
[…] relatively sensible policies involving spending restraint, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, regulatory budgeting, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic control. Heck, Canada even has one […]
[…] Trump says he wants to roll back the burden of regulation. Given the morass of red tape that is strangling the economy, this is a very worthy […]
[…] Given my schizophrenic views on Trump, this meant I was both supportive and critical, and I hope certain people in the White House paid attention to my comment about there being no need for the “stick” of protectionism if Trump delivers on the “carrot” of tax cuts and deregulation. […]
[…] Trump says he wants to roll back the burden of regulation. Give the morass of red tape that is strangling the economy, this is a very worthy […]
[…] Given my schizophrenic views on Trump, this meant I was both supportive and critical, and I hope certain people in the White House paid attention to my comment about there being no need for the “stick” of protectionism if Trump delivers on the “carrot” of tax cuts and deregulation. […]
[…] tape is a huge burden on the American economy, with even an Obama Administration bureaucracy acknowledging that costs far […]
[…] tape is a huge burden on the American economy, with even an Obama Administration bureaucracy acknowledging that costs far […]
[…] tape is a huge burden on the American economy, with even an Obama Administration bureaucracy acknowledging that costs far […]
[…] tape is a huge burden on the American economy, with even an Obama Administration bureaucracy acknowledging that costs far […]
[…] More regulation and red tape. […]
[…] ** More regulation and red tape. […]
[…] More regulation and red tape. […]
[…] More regulation and red tape. […]
[…] reform – The tentacles of the regulatory octopus are stifling the American economy. There’s no single fix for this problem. The overall system for approving regulations should […]
[…] routinely grouse about the heavy economic cost of red […]
[…] routinely grouse about the heavy economic cost of red […]
[…] routinely grouse about the heavy economic cost of red […]
[…] with connections can use the massive regulatory state to tilt the playing […]
[…] with connections can use the massive regulatory state to tilt the playing […]
[…] with connections can use the massive regulatory state to tilt the playing […]
[…] on the economy. This would be a welcome change, but the real key to better growth is getting rid of existing regulations that enable cronyism and weaken entrepreneurial […]
[…] is another example of Trump making an accurate point, but NPR then blowing smoke in an attempt to imply he was being […]
[…] Oh, and let’s not forget the regulatory burden. We’ve gone from a system that had virtually no red tape to a nation that is now suffocating from a blizzard of bureaucratic edicts. […]
[…] Oh, and let’s not forget the regulatory burden. We’ve gone from a system that had virtually no red tape to a nation that is now suffocating from a blizzard of bureaucratic edicts. […]
This regulatory B.S. is absurd.
[…] when we have a tax code and regulatory apparatus that make all of us criminals even when we’re trying to […]
[…] President Obama ramps up his record-breaking run on regulation in his last lap. Nothing really new, it just keeps getting worse and we just have to keep saying […]
if granny Clinton were to win the presidency… the “fundamental change” began by president Obama would continue… we would likely get 4 more years of Obama policy… {perhaps 8…} the corporations which have invested heavily in the Clinton phenomenon would do well… their competitors would be less fortunate… small business would suffer at the hands of lower level regulators hell bent on enforcing the finer points of cultural Marxism… political correctness and environmental orthodoxy… at some point our system would effectively grind to a halt… the decline of the middle class would continue and less fortunate Americans would suffer in greater numbers… it’s truly depressing….
on the positive side… granny has been a ruthless and unsavory character… with the judgment of a piece lawn furniture… and her record can be presented to the voting public in ways that will disappoint and disgust… the question is will the republicans have the courage to do what is necessary to win the election… when granny whines that they are misogynists… abusing a poor old woman… will they stay the course?
stay tuned….
the best we can hope for is a really nasty unified republican campaign
Ana article detailing the loss of 100 rivate sector jobs for each regulatory staffer is definitely in order.
Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….
[…] Reposted from International Liberty […]