August 13, 2016

"An army of lawyers working under Mr. Obama’s authority.... has imposed billions of dollars in new costs on businesses and consumers."

"Many of the new rules are little known, even as they affect the way Americans eat, love and die. People can dine on genetically engineered salmon. Women can buy emergency contraceptive pills without prescriptions. Military veterans can design their own headstones."

From "Once Skeptical of Executive Power, Obama Has Come to Embrace It/Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history" (in the NYT).

115 comments:

damikesc said...

Where does this assumption that Obama was skeptical about executive power? Because he hitched about Bush?

Hagar said...

I think the previous president Obama is most like is Woodrow Wilson.

Humperdink said...

"I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God." (W>F> Buckley 1959)

rhhardin said...

In a surprising consequence, the economy is ruined.

It's almost as if voluntary transactions depend on both parties coming out ahead.

LarsPorsena said...

..and his cold leaden hand will keep throttling us long after he's out of office.

Tommy Duncan said...

Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Milton Friedman

Levi Starks said...

Previous administrations were content to shape public behavior in the ordinary way, primarily through the tax code.
Since early on Obama gave the Republicans the finger, then lost the ability to lead legislatively, ruling by edict has been his only option, so naturally he's used it to its fullest extent. It's only too bad that his objectives and ours are so different

320Busdriver said...

" It covers the whole of social life with a network of petty, complicated rules that are both minute and uniform, through which even men of the greatest originality and the most vigorous temperament cannot force their heads above the crowd. It does not break men's will, but softens, bends, and guides it; it seldom enjoins, but often inhibits, action; it does not destroy anything, but prevents much from being born; it is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles and stultifies so much that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd." A. d. Tocqueville


Yeah, we're there.

PB said...

Any gain in the economy has been in spite of Obama. Just wait until interest rates go up and the interest on his extra $10 trillion dollar contribution to the debt is felt. People will think very differently about him.

Tank said...

@PB

Because of this, interest can never "go up" again.

AReasonableMan said...

People can dine on genetically engineered salmon.
Women can buy emergency contraceptive pills without prescriptions.
Military veterans can design their own headstones.

These three examples all increase personal freedom.

Unknown said...

And the nevertrumpers for Hillary think there is no difference between a republican and a democrat as potus. Ridiculous.

As a small business owner, I mostly feel like a dog with a bunch of government ticks living off me.

Amadeus 48 said...

The NYT is and endless fount of misinformation and misdirection.

It shares with Barry the simple world-view that what we all need is endless direction from Top Men and Women and Others advised by experts.

End result: Venezuela. Mild Form: European Union.

Many of us prefer the view (thanks rhhardin) that voluntary transactions where both parties believe they are better off provide a better, richer and more just society. Regulation equals distortion.




rehajm said...

Romney had it right when he proposed combing through the regulations and requiring an opt-in for every one of them.

The good news is this crap is easy to remove...and ignore. Either of the options for next president will not be kind to Obama's 'signature' achievements.

Humperdink said...

ARM said: "These three examples all increase personal freedom."

Please expand your list ARM, I am genuinely curious.

AReasonableMan said...

The increased regulations on the financial industry are future life savers for the economy. This is Steve Eisman's take on the effects of the new regulations on the banking industry.

Hagar said...

The left is always ready to cede any chance of me improving my lot if it will just prevent "the rich from getting richer."

Though these days it seems they are getting a bit selective about who they think "the rich" are. Evidently it does not include Hollywood or dot.com gadzillionaires, and certainly not hose who have made their money in politics.

JAORE said...

The tidal wave of regulations are a hidden tax on many levels. I have family in the HR business. They tell me a large percentage of their recent hiring is for people just to monitor, enforce and report on regulatory requirements. They also describe the frustration with complying with regulations that not only overlap but contradict each other.

Plus the regulations tilt the playing field for larger companies. For example suppose a new reg required 5 full time employees for compliance. Imagine the difference in bottom line effect on a firm with 100 employees versus one with 1,000.

Quayle said...

AReasonableMan, are you saying that before administrative regulations, people couldn't dine on genetically engineered salmon, buy emergency contraceptive pills without prescriptions, or design their own headstones?

rehajm said...

The increased regulations on the financial industry are future life savers for the economy

You could keep the reserve requirements and chuck the rest of the 200,000 pages of in the shredder. Here's what should be done.

Humperdink said...

ARM said: "These three examples all increase personal freedom."

I requested: "Please expand your list ARM, I am genuinely curious."

ARM responded: "The increased regulations on the financial industry are future life savers for the economy. This is Steve Eisman's take on the effects of the new regulations on the banking industry."

Nobel effort ARM, but let's stay with "increase personal freedom" aspect of new regulations. Any more?

Humperdink said...

And please, no triple bank shots ...."studies have shown increased banking regulations gave the poor ...."

Fernandinande said...

The word "constitutional" is missing from the article. Cuz almost all the rules and regulations are not.

boycat said...

The bad news for Obama and the good news for us is it can all be undone just as easily, with a stroke of a pen. If the next president is so inclined.

Quayle said...

As for the banking system, I hardly call it good or successful when to save the cow the government prescribes pill E and constant monitoring by tax payer funded "experts", when the only reason the cow was sick in the first place was because the government had previously required the cow to be given pills A, B, C, and D, which made it sick, and because the government also had been force feeding the sick cow at night, in the dark, with more tax payer funded food than any cow could possibly healthily eat.

The simple country vet observed that if the government stopped feeding the cow, and stopped requiring all the medication, the cow would do just fine if (a) it was pastured in a field close to the farmer so the farmer could keep an eye on the cow, on what it ate, and on how the field hands were taking care of the cow, and (b) the government required a simple fence between the farmer's single cow pasture, and the land baron's giant herd of cattle and buffalo.

The government's objection to the simple country vet's diagnosis and solution was not because the solution wouldn't work - it would. The government's objection was because the solution meant that the farmer didn't really need the government hanging around and having so much control. And the government's view was it was the solution to every problem, and spending tax payers' funds would allow it to call itself great! Above all, the government wanted control to justify its own bloated existence.

So was pill E and constant monitoring by "experts" really so great?

AReasonableMan said...

Quayle said...
are you saying that before administrative regulations, people couldn't dine on genetically engineered salmon


Apparently not. Genetic engineering has always been very tightly regulated, appropriately in my view.

virgil xenophon said...

JAORE@9:12 hits on the main reason that major corporations have become big Donkey supporters. The Donkeys instituted regs help mightily to eliminate the upstart competition of smaller competing companies that can't afford to "bill over" the burden of imposed heavy regulatory costs..

traditionalguy said...

This is another way to say that the Congress that is the people's Republic,is deemed dead by Mullah Obama.

And Congress likes it that way if you pay them off.

virgil xenophon said...

And 320Busdriver pretty much covers the ENTIRE waterfront with his Tocqueville quote...

Fernandinande said...

AReasonableMan said...
These three examples all increase personal freedom.


By a lack of regulation. It seemed weird to me that they were even mentioned.

Here's a good very recent example of how regulations hurt small businesses, help large businesses and decrease personal freedom and choice. For your own good, of course.

FDA Assigns Zero Value to Smokers Who Die Because of Its E-Cigarette Regulations
"New rules will dramatically reduce competition, variety, and innovation, retarding the replacement of smoking with a much safer alternative."

Tommy Duncan said...
"a free economy...gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want." -- MF


"There is something wrong with anyone who wants nicotine. We'll help them."

Quayle said...

rehajim writes, "You could keep the reserve requirements and chuck the rest of the 200,000 pages of in the shredder. Here's what should be done."

I agree. While mark to market requirement are usually a good thing, when they threaten bringing down an entire economy, perhaps it isn't do good.

If the fed had allowed MBS to be collateral to loans at an intrinsic value level, there would have been plenty of liquidity to see us through the run, and until the market for MBS had time to short out each mortgage pool's real value.

But as you see, I am advocating greater shareholder control to lower agency costs, of which high risk/high return gambling with shareholders money is an egregious type that, in the financial sector, must be checked. But shareholder checks are more organic and effective than regulation.

Bob Boyd said...

"deep misgivings"
Oh for crying out loud...
What Obama says and what he does are two different things. It's not any deeper than that.

I doubt Obama himself knows much of anything about the regulations imposed under his reign, nor does he care. Political appointees were unleashed to implement whatever faddish legal projects tickled their fancy as long as they advantaged the Party and brought in cash from those seeking to tweak the new regulations to advantage themselves. The larger consequences matter not, as long as a worshipful press will stick to fawning articles keen on helping us all understand Obama's journey.

damikesc said...

The increased regulations on the financial industry are future life savers for the economy.

By making some banks "too large to fail"? I don't see how that is beneficial. It simply insures that they are allowed to make government-level idiotic decisions and feel secure that they will always be bailed out by the poor saps who don't have any power.

AReasonableMan, are you saying that before administrative regulations, people couldn't dine on genetically engineered salmon, buy emergency contraceptive pills without prescriptions, or design their own headstones?

And if they couldn't...WHY couldn't they?

As I like to say, segregation wasn't a business decision. It was a government regulation.

Quayle said...

"Apparently not. Genetic engineering has always been very tightly regulated, appropriately in my view."

Because.....why?

Because people are stupid and shouldn't be even given a choice of whether they themselves want to eat genetically engineered food?

Because we have no way, in our modern technical environment, to communicate to a potential consumer, information about what that consumer is looking at in the frozen food section of the store?

I think your arrogance and sense of superiority is shown in your supposed altruism. What you are saying is that there are so many of our fellow-citizens who are too stupid to make good choices, and are too stupid to be taught.

But if that is the case, then how do you expect all your stupid fellow-citizens to make a good choice when they vote, if they are too stupid to make a good decision when they eat?

Oh, I see where this is going. In advocating your imposition of limits to the choices of your fellow-citizens, you are also implicitly advocating your opposition to democracy, because people vote with both ballots and with dollars.

Ad the end of the logic, you want the "smart guys" to run all our lives, so that (altruist that you are, ha ha) you can keep all your stupid fellow-citizens from harming themselves by bad decisions.

I call this the delusional dream: lust for control to do good.

(But even know, you probably don't realize that such lust isn't the real problem. Many want control to do good. The hard problem is: who among us is good enough to be allowed to have control?)

machine said...

...this is what happens when there is a legislative void/blockade.



AReasonableMan said...

Quayle said...
Because.....why?


Because of the enormous capacity to create havoc in the natural world. At least since the time that it was recognized that oncogenes could be transmitted by viruses there has been considerable concern about really screwing up with genetic engineering. As an imminent threat to humanity's survival genetic engineering currently ranks at least equal to nuclear weapons and will surpass them if the power of the technology continues to grow at the current rate.

This being said, I have no problem eating genetically modified organisms, my digestive system is agnostic regarding the DNA sequences it is breaking down.

Quayle said...

"Because of the enormous capacity to create havoc in the natural world. "

But gay marriage has no such risk in our social world?

Unknown said...

Trump Embraces Executive Orders to Avoid Congressional Gridlock. Here are 13 policies Trump has proposed that he could accomplish without help from Congress.

Donald Trump may be one of Barack Obama's toughest critics, but when it comes to the president's use of executive orders to circumvent Congress, the Republican sees him as a role model.

Trump has already promised to be as aggressive as Obama on executive orders on a wide range of issues.



Hagar said...

Regulations are about fixing things in place; "the way it used to be" or the way somebody in power thinks they ought to be. Either way a necessary consequence is that they prevent or slow down change and new opportunities from opening up.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
People can dine on genetically engineered salmon.
Women can buy emergency contraceptive pills without prescriptions.
Military veterans can design their own headstones.

These three examples all increase personal freedom.

You ahve no idea how absolutely pathetic that reads.
Be grateful for the state ARM.
It's allowing you to do these things.

Original Mike said...

"Because of this, interest can never "go up" again."

Yeah. Of course, when the time comes the Fed won't be able to stop them.

We are so screwed.

FullMoon said...

AReasonableMan said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Quayle said...
Because.....why?

Because of the enormous capacity to create havoc in the natural world. At least since the time that it was recognized that oncogenes could be transmitted by viruses there has been considerable concern about really screwing up with genetic engineering. As an imminent threat to humanity's survival genetic engineering currently ranks at least equal to nuclear weapons and will surpass them if the power of the technology continues to grow at the current rate.

This being said, I have no problem eating genetically modified organisms, my digestive system is agnostic regarding the DNA sequences it is breaking down.


I'll be a sonofabitch !. All this time I thought ARM had no sense of humor.

AReasonableMan said...

Quayle said...
But gay marriage has no such risk in our social world?


A. Gay marriage increases personal freedom.
B. It has no noticeable effect on our social world.
C. It is completely unrelated to prior discussion.

Robert Cook said...

"Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

"Milton Friedman"


Uncle Milty! Perhaps Friedman actually believed his own rhetoric, which would only show breathtaking naivete on his part, if so. The most ardent proponents of a "free economy" are the predatory capitalists and financiers who want an economy "free" of laws, regulations and government oversight, an economy in which they may exercise their larcenous impulses as freely, as lustily and with as little heed to limits or ethics as an army of Casanovas let into a Catholic girls' school at night free of chaperones.

Humperdink said...

ARM said: "Gay marriage increases personal freedom."

Tell that to the pastors, bakers and candlestick makers.

damikesc said...

A. Gay marriage increases personal freedom.

Unless you don't wish to do work to applaud gay marriage, of course.

Quayle said...

A. Gay marriage increases personal freedom. (granted, but to what effect?)

B. It has no noticeable effect on our social world. (and how exactly do you know that? Isn't it self evident that changes to family structure would take generations to show effects, not 10 or 20 years. Where is your laboratory data to back up your claim? I'll back my claim up with evolutionary data - show me the civilization that has survived with gay marriage allowed?)

C. It is completely unrelated to prior discussion. (Ah, not so. It shows how inconsistent your stance on regulation and personal freedom is. Because of course the left is all about absolute and total personal freedom when it comes to sex - historically shown to be one of the most powerful forces in the world for good or bad - but not when it comes to salmon. It is like the left is saying no limits on nuclear weapons, but you can't own a bb gun.)

My position is that if we're going to do the personal freedom path, then let's do it and get all the crap regulations out. If we're going to regulate for the greater good, then why isn't gay marriage or homosexuality in play?

AReasonableMan said...

Good example of the unintended effects of genetic engineering. 100% lethality by accident.

Quayle said...

BTW, I would add that genetically engineered salmon has no noticeable effect on our physical world.

Amadeus 48 said...

Robert Cook--That is a very uni-dimensional view of man's depravity. One could equally rant against the will to power and soul-crushing activities of environmentalists, socialists, bureaucrats, social reformers, politicians, and other so-called do-gooders who seek to impose their will on others without the consent of the others.

In general, humanity has prospered where individuals and groups have sought to enter into voluntary transactions that they believe will make them better off.

I denounce your fascistic totalitarianism, Cookie.

Robert Cook said...

"Regulations are about fixing things in place; 'the way it used to be' or the way somebody in power thinks they ought to be."

In a functioning self-governing society, regulations are intended to prevent predators from taking advantage of the people at large, by preventing the manufacture or sale of dangerous products; by preventing the disposal into the air and water and earth of poisonous waste by waste-producing enterprises; by preventing the perpetration of fraud upon the people; by requiring safe and non-health-endangering workplaces and working conditions; and any number of other scenarios that would exist in the absence of civil and criminal laws and punishments aimed at wolves seeking to fatten themselves on the sheep.

No one need point out to me that we do not presently live in a functioning self-governing society; that's the obvious implication in my use of the phrase. We live in a society where the wolves, masquerading as sheep, have taken possession of the pens and pastures and are feasting freely.

Quayle said...

Good example of the unintended effects of engineered family structures - kids suffer.

Robert Cook said...

"In general, humanity has prospered where individuals and groups have sought to enter into voluntary transactions that they believe will make them better off."

"Voluntary transactions" are impossible where one side makes or manipulates the rules, or where the "belief" by one party to the transaction that he will be better off in making the deal is based on lies and fraud by other parties to the transaction, or where there is no choice or free decision at all, as the transaction is coerced through force or economic pressure, or where one party is the only provider of something the other party desperately needs.

damikesc said...

"Voluntary transactions" are impossible where one side makes or manipulates the rules, or where the "belief" by one party to the transaction that he will be better off in making the deal is based on lies and fraud by other parties to the transaction, or where there is no choice or free decision at all, as the transaction is coerced through force or economic pressure, or where one party is the only provider of something the other party desperately needs.

...except policies you prefer directly make the problem WORSE. Why anybody would think the government could POSSIBLY be an honest broker in any agreement is baffling.

Quayle said...

We live in a society where the wolves, masquerading as sheep, have taken possession of the pens and pastures and are feasting freely.

...

"Voluntary transactions" are impossible where one side makes or manipulates the rules, or where the "belief" by one party to the transaction that he will be better off in making the deal is based on lies and fraud by other parties to the transaction...."


So Cookie, I take it from this that you would never vote for the Clinton machine, and that you are opposed restraints on free speech of affiliated or self-formed groups?

madAsHell said...

Regulations, and ordering the flag to half-mast.

320Busdriver said...

These regulators, these beaurocrats, making all of these rules for us to attempt to follow. Sure is a good thing we can throw these bums out at the next election. Thats how the Framers envisioned it, right?

Amadeus 48 said...

Robert Cook--

Especially the ravening beasts from the federal bureaucracy who corrupt the housing market (Fannie May, Freddie Mac, CRA of 1995), the savings market (Federal Reserve zero interest rates), the environment (EPA and Gold King mine disaster), our political institutions (IRS and Tea Party), our educational institutions (Dept. of Education "guidance" on Title IX), the veterans hospitals (VA), and so on and so forth.

Remember, this country was founded by people who tarred and feathered the Crown's tax collectors. Arise, you Sons of Liberty!

Or, we could elect people who are prepared to put the federal government in its (much smaller) place.

Humperdink said...

Unknown said: "Donald Trump may be one of Barack Obama's toughest critics, but when it comes to the president's use of executive orders to circumvent Congress, the Republican sees him as a role model.

Trump has already promised to be as aggressive as Obama on executive orders on a wide range of issues."

If I was a democrat, I would be terrified of the potential use of EO's by Trumperific. Obama set the table for overreach by the executive branch. You know, "precedent" or sumthin'.

Original Mike said...

Hillary Clinton's economic performance is going to be even weaker than Obama's. I guess the silver lining is that interest rates will stay depressed, pushing the national debt apocalypse into the future. Maybe that's part of the plan.

Meeeea said...

Reading Busdriver's
" It covers the whole of social life with a network of petty, complicated rules that are both minute and uniform, through which even men of the greatest originality and the most vigorous temperament cannot force their heads above the crowd. It does not break men's will, but softens, bends, and guides it; it seldom enjoins, but often inhibits, action; it does not destroy anything, but prevents much from being born; it is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles and stultifies so much that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd." A. d. Tocqueville

Yeah, we're there."

I agree, but was thinking it does destroy something, couldn't put my finger on it until I read Amadeus' "soul-crushing."
That's what it destroys, your soul. (Although ADT probably means that by "a flock of timid and hardworking animals")

Has anyone read Ira Levin's "This Perfect Day"? I haven't read it since high school, but I think Levin's tale is more relevant (and supports Busdriver's ADT quote) to what we are fast becoming than the other dystopian novels. I'll never forget the chant from Levin's book: "Christ, Marx, Wood & Wei, led us to this perfect day."

n.n said...

Regulatory disparity and dysfunctional incentives.

Hagar said...

Robertt Cook should join a monastery. I believe there is one somewhere up on the Rio Chama that would suit him perfecrly.

glenn said...

And if a Republican had issued one tenth of these regs the Times would be screaming like a stuck pig about "executive overreach"
The right or wrong of politics depends 100% on whose Ox is getting gored. My Ox is sacred.

Unknown said...

Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush signed more Executove Orders than Obama has. The precedent was set long before Obama became president.

I'd be worried if I were a Republican, Clinton won't pussyfoot around the way Obama did.

Humperdink said...

@Unknown. Signing an EO designating a new stature in Hickville is a bit different than making wholesale changes to immigration laws. (Speaking of being oblivious - a label you are fond of using).

machine said...

and yet he still hasn't issued as many as W, the faux cowboy...weird.

Mick said...

More regulations equal less freedom.

Original Mike said...

Blogger machine said..."and yet he still hasn't issued as many as W, the faux cowboy...weird."

and yet, you're not smart enough to understand the need to address the cost of the orders. Not weird, it's what we've come to expect.

AReasonableMan said...

Mick said...
More regulations equal less freedom.


Yet you are comfortable with regulations that stop people born to foreign born parents from becoming president.

Skipper said...

Blame Congress. They gave away lawmaking powers to the executive with all the delegation of rulemaking authority all last century.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
need to address the cost of the orders


No evidence presented either way.

Robert Cook said...

"So Cookie, I take it from this that you would never vote for the Clinton machine, and that you are opposed restraints on free speech of affiliated or self-formed groups?"

Heck, I would never vote for Obama, much less Hillary. I'm voting for Jill Stein, as I did four years ago. I am opposed to restraints on free speech, of course.

Original Mike said...

"No evidence presented either way."

I wasn't the one making the original claim. Not going to waste my Saturday feeding a troll.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Robert Cook said...

"Uncle Milty! Perhaps Friedman actually believed his own rhetoric, which would only show breathtaking naivete on his part, if so. The most ardent proponents of a "free economy" are the predatory capitalists and financiers who want an economy "free" of laws, regulations and government oversight, an economy in which they may exercise their larcenous impulses as freely, as lustily and with as little heed to limits or ethics as an army of Casanovas let into a Catholic girls' school at night free of chaperones."

********

Yet Milty's naivete got him a Nobel Prize. While you got.....bupkis.

And...please point us to the horrors of the dog-eat-dog capitalism the United States lived under BEFORE the Left imposed its millions of pages of regulations and laws on us. In particular explain why the USA grew to become an economic powerhouse whose citizens achieved higher standards of living than did Europeans.

Robert Cook said...

"Remember, this country was founded by people who tarred and feathered the Crown's tax collectors. Arise, you Sons of Liberty! "

They were also rich elites who designed a government limiting access to democracy for the rabble. They also withheld the vote from more people than were granted it, and they maintained slavery as a legal institution. They were not paragons of egalitarian populism.

wholelottasplainin' said...

JAORE said...
The tidal wave of regulations are a hidden tax on many levels. I have family in the HR business. They tell me a large percentage of their recent hiring is for people just to monitor, enforce and report on regulatory requirements. They also describe the frustration with complying with regulations that not only overlap but contradict each other.
********************

But...but...but.... the Economically Illiterate/Innumerate Left points to all those regulatory compliance hires as glowing examples of Job Creation!!! A good thing, right?

n.n said...

An army of lawyers led by a lawyer. It's a crony establishment servicing the establishment.

jebkinnison.com said...

Meryl Streep explains why our betters need to decide evrything for us. http://youtu.be/IEDu9jVpUjI

320Busdriver said...

Machine said...

...this is what happens when there is a legislative void/blockade.


Is that the same blockade that prevented 20T in debt? Weird

Original Mike said...

Well, this is hilarous (and sad). Via Instapundit.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Robert Cook said...
"Remember, this country was founded by people who tarred and feathered the Crown's tax collectors. Arise, you Sons of Liberty! "

They were also rich elites who designed a government limiting access to democracy for the rabble. They also withheld the vote from more people than were granted it, and they maintained slavery as a legal institution. They were not paragons of egalitarian populism.
***************************

Ahhhh, a Zinn disciple!


NEVER MIND that "they" never claimed to be "paragons of egalitarian populism". You're offering a strawman argument.

NEVER MIND that "they" were setting up a Republic, not a Democracy.

NEVER MIND that at that time no country on Earth granted its citizens universal suffrage, not even universal male suffrage! So...another strawman.


And, we note your sneering reference to common citizens as "the rabble". Yep, contempt for ordinary people, a universal "progressive" trait.

(and unless you have textual evidence that the Founders used this term when referring to ordinary citizens, it's yet another strawman.

Amadeus 48 said...

Robert Cook--

There is a long tradition in this country of popular resistance to taxes and regulatory solutions imposed from above by elites who do not bear the consequences of those taxes or solutions. If I were a retired secretary who had saved $200,000 over my career that I planned to generate $8,000 a year in interest income from CDs, I would be asking why zero interest rates were necessary seven years after the last recession ended. The costs of the "brilliant" Bernanke/Yellin/Obama plan for recovery have been imposed directly on the class of savers--middle class, responsible people. Past time to end the distortions.

On the other hand, as James Madison said in The Federalist No. 55, "If every Athenian citizen had been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." The representative republic designed by the founders was intended to provide a weak executive and a national government with limited and enumerated powers. I think we can all agree that we have strayed from the original design, and, indeed, have become more democratic. The mobs are forming on both sides of the political divide. Both sides want to have political power, so they can tell others what is to be done. I doubt that the 2016 election will settle anything.

I personally prefer the government with limited and enumerated powers so there is more room for voluntary actions to solve problems by the people most affected. You apparently approve of government by strong men and their deputized thugs. I think you are wrong.

Unknown said...

I take exception to ARM's claim that there is no social cost to same sex marriage. I can identify one, right now. To set the stage, realize that in order to become an attorney and able to practice law, you have to pass the bar exam in the jurisdiction you wish to practice in. IN order to take the bar exam, the vast majority of states require you to have a law degree from an ABA accredited law school. Thus, your ability to become a lawyer depends on graduating from an ABA accredited law school.

Because of same sex marriage, numerous Christian law schools are being threatened with losing their ABA accreditation. I think of BYU Law school, one of the top 50 in the country, but they are certainly not alone. Because of Same Sex marriage, every single graduate of BYU Law school, over the past 50 years, is in danger of losing their right to practice law in a new jurisdiction, or for new graduates the ability to practice law at all. Essentially, homosexuality is threatening their livelihoods, and very soon the livelihood of any other Christian attorney or judge. Recall California has already tried to force Christians out of the ranks of the judges by forcing them to either stop being a judge or stop supporting the Boy Scouts.

And what happens when no more judges can be Christians, because they are unwilling to sell their souls and their convictions in order to be a judge? Will America be better off with Christianity barred from the legal system, all because of homosexuals? Do we think the "social fabric" of America is better off by telling 70 odd percent of the country their kind is not welcome in the halls of the law?

--Vance

eric said...

Once upon a time, the United States of America had three branches of government known as the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches.

Then slowly, over time, the Judicial branch began to assert itself. It stopped interpreting laws and started finding laws that were never written or intended. This, in effect, made the Judicial branch a hyper legislative branch.

The Executive branch grew jealous of the Judicial branch. "I too, want to make the laws!" cried the Executive branch. Unfortunately, the Executive branch realized that too many people were looking directly at the head of the Executive branch, the President. So he thought to himself, "How can I too be more like the Judicial branch and make laws?" he thought and thought and thought, and then an idea occured, "There are thousands of bureaucrats working under me, and they too are supposed to interpret laws just like the Judicial branch! I'll have them interpret them just as I want them to mean."

And so it was that the Legislative branch became a joke. Now, the Executive branch gets to make all the laws. How you say? Because the Executive gets to pick all of the Judicial branch and all of the bureaucrats that make the laws. And so, all he needs to do is pick the right people and they'll make all the right laws for him.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

buwaya puti said...

COMPLIANCE is the major, #1, purpose of business investment over the last decade. A major driver for Bay Area IT firms also.
This is no accident.

buwaya puti said...

A system choked with rules and regulations is ideal for entrenching established firms, leveraging economies of scale, and providing opportunities for private-public collusion.
We see it in the US now, on the grandest scale in human history. To date.

The effects are perfectly visible. Pay attention to facts and not journalism. Even the government publishes all the data you could ever want, to come to this conclusion.

Milton Friedman was entirely correct. He was just not as pessimistic, and not as realistic, as Schumpeter.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Next time stop pretending that a gerrymandered Congress gives you any democratic legitimacy.

Birkel said...

buwaya puti:

And compliance is a zero-sum activity. It adds no value, but rather moves value from one location to another. Namely, it moves it from the productive, value-added account to the Leftists.

That is why the Left loves it so well.

Amadeus 48 said...

Rhythm and Balls--Re: Congressional majorities.

I dunno--the Dems did it pretty much from 1932 until 1994 without much whimpering from people like you or, indeed, anyone in the press. Therefore, I believe your concern is situational.

Birkel said...

Why are people concentrating on Friedman? Read "A Wealth of Nations" for a much older composition on the desire of business to be regulated by government.

Tocqueville merely noted the lack of regulation that government had so far imposed on businesses.

Leviathan must be reversed, one way or the other.

Humperdink said...

@ARM. While out running my mini-excavator, it hit me of another group that is enjoying a significant level of personal freedom as a result of Obama's regulations. That would be unemployed coal miners.

What could be more than free than sitting in your lazy boy every day, waiting for your monthly government check?

Unknown said...

Robert Cook I will always take "Uncle Milty's" writing over your motheaten socialists who always manage to get it wrong every single, solitary, time they get their hand on the till. Here's a little reminder of the cheerleading that goes one when your pals get in control:
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/

damikesc said...

So Cookie, I take it from this that you would never vote for the Clinton machine

I may not agree with Cook, but I don't doubt his sincerity. I'd be stunned if he voted for Clinton. I suspect he'd not vote before voting for her.

...of course, he'd never vote Republican no matter what.

They were not paragons of egalitarian populism.

By today's standards, no. But it is wrong to compare historical figures to today's standards. By their contemporary standards, they remarkably egalitarian.

...this is what happens when there is a legislative void/blockade.

Machine feels Bush should've privatized Social Security by fiat since the Dems blockaded the legislation with no proposal on how to correct the problems with the Fund. Nice.

Next time stop pretending that a gerrymandered Congress gives you any democratic legitimacy.

That horse left that barn decades ago.

buwaya puti said...

Interesting article in the Los Angeles Daily News.
On business relocation out of California, driven mainly by bureaucratic harassment.
A study/survey by Spectrum Location Solutions, a business relocation consultant.
I have heard of them before, they have been very busy.

The interesting bit is that the only positive factors in business moves in California are a liberal level - more than any other state - in incentives, i.e. subsidies. Politics and corporatism.

buwaya puti said...

As I have said repeatedly, California is the future.
If you want to see how Democrats will govern with absolute power, it is here. They will crush everything they dont favor. And since what they favor already exists, the only reasonable conclusion is that they will simply crush everything that they havent yet managed to crush.

They will also govern with the most extreme level of corruption yet seen in the US. CA (or possibly New York, I am not convinced of that) is already the most corrupt state of all.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Robert Cook said..They were not paragons of egalitarian populism

Yeah, the weren't anything like the Stalinist butchers you worship.

It's instructive having ARM & Cook both in the same thread. Both are on the Left, of course, but you do get a sense of the difference between the Leftists who will just disagree with you and the ones who'll ship you off to the camps.

Hagar said...

@Robert Cook,
Regulations are written by people and are carried out and enforced by people.

F. ex. Years ago Tommy Romero came back from City Hall shaking his head and talking to himself, so I asked what was the matter. He had been down for a pre-design conference where some point was brought up, and the lead engineer for the City stated that "Well, for this project this rule males no sense, but you have to do it, because it is in the DPM!"
And that is how it works down here on earth.

(DPM = City Development Process Manual.)

Hagar said...

And further.
An engineer who wrote one the original DPM sections, quit the City and opened a private practice. He then then several times had the experience of being told that this or that of a design he submitted for approval was in violation of the section of the DPM that he had written. He would protest and said it was not, he had written that section and he knew what he had written. And was told "Yeah, but that is not what you meant!"

It is not just Orwell, it is Kafka and Orwell.

mikee said...

I once new a state official, who, when told he could not purchase something essential for the operation of his duties due to restrictions of a state purchasing law, asked immediately what the penalty was for violating that law. Turned out there was no penalty for violation of the law/regulation/procedure written into the state code.

He ordered the stuff he wanted, got it, and nobody ever said anything about it to him again.

Robert Cook said...

"Yeah, the weren't anything like the Stalinist butchers you worship."

Who do you presume these "Stalinist butchers" be?

I don't worship any politicians. I see their proper duty as to be servants to the will of the people. They are our hirelings.

Hagar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"...'they' never claimed to be 'paragons of egalitarian populism.' You're offering a strawman argument.

I never said THEY claimed to be paragons of egalitarian populism. It is those romanticizers of the days of yore, when "America was great," who would have us believe our forefathers erected a perfect republic, after which it has all been downhill.

"And, we note your sneering reference to common citizens as 'the rabble.'Yep, contempt for ordinary people, a universal 'progressive' trait."

You're not as sharp as you seem to think you are. It will be obvious to any acute reader that my sentence expresses the attitude our forefathers had toward the commoners of the colonies, whom they perceived as rabble.

Step it up.

Hagar said...

I remember reading - in the Norwegian edition of, not Readers' Digest, but the other one, so it was before 1953 - about a power company in California that spent $200,000 to calculate ca. $20,000 it owed in local taxes.
This has been going on for a long time.

Robert Cook said...

"Yet Milty's naivete got him a Nobel Prize."

So did Obama's efforts for peace! Ha!

Hagar said...

Last time heard from, the government had only spent about half of Obama's $800+ billion "stimulus." Famously, his "shovel-ready" proved to be anything but shovel-ready due to the years long - and decades for major projects - journey through the regulatory processes for environmental approvals, etc., etc., necessary before you even get down to detail designs and specifications.
Not a big deal, but typical, the Democrats had a section that was going to immediately put the unemployed to work weatherstripping poor peoples' homes. A year later nothing had happened, and, if iirc, the reason given was that the Labor Dept. had not finished writing the wage rules yet.

Likewise, the Bush administration got 8 billion from Congress for hurricane "Katrina" and 5 years later, I think, a little less than 4 billion had been spent and the rest was hung up in various regulatory processes. By then the press had lost interest, so I have not read what, if anything, happened to the remaining money.

And so it goes.

AReasonableMan said...

Robert Cook said...
"Yet Milty's naivete got him a Nobel Prize."

So did Obama's efforts for peace! Ha!


And, never forget that the guy who invented the frontal lobotomy also got one. Every one is not a winner.

Hagar said...

What I have heard of Hillary!'s economic program sounds to be a lot like what already failed under Obama. If we are going to "invest in infrastructure", the regulatory nightmare must be cleaned up first if it is to have any effect within any president's one or two terms in office, but it sounds like Hillary!, quite to the contrary, is going in the other direction.
She is also promising to continue Obama's energy policies, which has only resulted in the predators and scavengers gathering around to take advantage of government subsidies for "alternative energy projects" while putting the coal miners and oilfield workers on the dole.
This is all going to drag the economy further down rather than help get it moving up.

Rusty said...

And people wonder why business goes overseas.

Matthew Blaine said...

I LOVE the flowery language the Times uses to describe Obama's heavy hand. He's a "prolific author," and his actions are a "sweeping assertion of executive authority." The admiration leaps off the page.

But please don't tell me he was ever reluctant to use executive orders or rule via agency regulations. He signed an EO on his first day in office.

Obama's legacy is that laws don't matter, as long as the Supreme Court treats any agency regulation as a legitimate expression of legal authority.

Hagar said...

"Coronet" was the name of the magazine. I am not sure if it was a Norwegian edition or was just also sold in Norway, but I am sure I read it while still in the old country.

Hagar said...

On the bright side; Trump will not be able to start WWIII because the EPA will never approve the Environmental Impact Statement.

Annie said...

So unknown, it was perfectly okay for obama's use of executive orders? Maybe Trump will use his pen and phone to nullify every single order obama made.

Unknown said...

Robert Cook said...
"Yet Milty's naivete got him a Nobel Prize."

So did Obama's efforts for peace! Ha!
8/13/16, 4:19 PM

I seem to recall that Obama got the Nobel Prize before he had actually done anything. Peaceful or not.

Unknown said...

Blogger Hagar said...
Last time heard from, the government had only spent about half of Obama's $800+ billion "stimulus." Famously, his "shovel-ready" proved to be anything but shovel-ready due to the years long - and decades for major projects - journey through the regulatory processes for environmental approvals, etc., etc., necessary before you even get down to detail designs and specifications.

If there is one single thing that Donald Trump is absolutely qualified and absolutely motivated to fix, it is this.