Voting with Their Feet

After our comments yesterday that Delaware was following the northeast states on the path to ruin, we found this column by Dr. Thomas Sowell. Dr. Sowell is one of America's greatest thinkers.

He points out that people are voting with their feet by leaving the liberal states that treat businesses and job creators as enemies. Why is it then, that Delaware is following that same path? Taken to its logical conclusion, the outcome will not be pleasant.

Voting With Their Feet

Dr. Thomas Sowell

The last published data from the 2010 census show how people are moving from place to place within the United States. In general, people are voting with their feet against places where the liberal, welfare-state policies favored by the intelligentsia are most deeply entrenched.

When you break it down by race and ethnicity, it is all too painfully clear what is happening. Both whites and blacks are leaving California, the poster state for the liberal, welfare-state and nanny-state philosophy.

Whites are also fleeing the big northeastern liberal, welfare states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as well as the same kinds of states in the midwest, such as Michigan, Ohio and Illinois.

Alth

ough California has long been a prime destination of Asian immigrants and the homes of their descendants, the 2010 census shows a striking increase in the Asian American population of Nevada, more so than any other state. Nevada is adjacent to California but has no income tax nor the hostile climate for business that California maintains.

The movement of the black population-- especially educated young blacks-- is the most striking of all.

In the past, the massive movements of millions of blacks out of the South in the early 20th century was one of the epic

migrations of a people-- comparable in size with the millions of the Irish who fled the famine in Ireland in the 1840s or the millions of Jews who fled persecution in Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In more recent decades, blacks have been moving back to the South, however. While the overall black population of the northeastern and midwestern states has not declined in the past ten years, except in M

ichigan and Illinois, the net increase of the black population nationwide has increasingly been in the South. About half of the national growth of the black population took place in the South in the 1970s, two-thirds in the 1990s and three-quarters in the past 10 years.

While the mass migrations of blacks out of the South in the early 20th century was to places where there were already established black communities, such as New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, much of the current movement of blacks is away from existing concentrations of black populations.

Blacks are moving to suburbs, and even to cities like Minneapolis. Overall, the racial residential segregation patterns are declining in the great majority of the largest major metropolitan areas.

Among blacks who moved, the proportions who were in their prime -- from 20 to 40 years of age-- were greater than in the black population at large, and college degrees were more common among them than in the black population at large. In short, with blacks, as with other racial or ethnic groups, those with better prospects are leaving the states that are repelling their most productive citizens in general with liberal policies.

Detroit is perhaps the most striking example of a once thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies. Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent.

It was not despair that fueled the riot. It was the riot which marked the beginning of the decline of Detroit to its current state of despair. Detroit's population today is only half of what it once was, and its most productive people have been the ones who fled.

Treating businesses and affluent people as prey, rather than assets, often pays off politically in the short run-- and elections are held in the short run. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable political strategy.

As whites were the first to start leaving Detroit, its then mayor Coleman Young saw this only as an exodus of people who were likely to vote against him, enhancing his re-election prospects.

But what was good for Mayor Young was disastrous for Detroit.

There is a lesson here somewhere, but it is very doubtful if either the intelligentsia or the politicians will learn it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/03/29/voting_with_their_feet

Obama On Oil: More Misleading Rhetoric

President Barack Obama says that Americans are “tired of talk” when it comes to rising gas prices. Unfortunately his administration continues to say one thing and do another on this critical economic front – ignoring opportunities to increase our oil supply while at the same time taking credit for production gains that he is actively seeking to dismantle.

Such doublespeak is obviously nothing new from Mr. Obama – although there is clearly a sense of urgency underlying his latest deception.

According to AAA, the average price of a gallon of gas in America reached $3.55 last week. That’s up 43 cents from a month ago – the second-fastest spike on record.

All told, gas prices have increased by 67 percent since Mr. Obama took office – and as the global economy grapples with a nuclear crisis in Japan, a sovereign debt crisis in Europe and war in the Middle East there is growing concern that further price hikes could put the brakes on a sluggish economic “recovery.”

In an effort to mollify these concerns, on March 8 the Obama administration released data showing that domestic oil production – at least in the Gulf of Mexico – had risen to its highest level in seven years.

“From 2008 to 2010, oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf increased more than a third – from 446 million barrels in 2008 to an more than 600 million barrels of estimated production in 2010,” White House climate change czar Heather Zichal said.

These figures – obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) – were trumpeted by Mr. Obama at a press conference four days later.

“Any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn’t match up with reality,” Mr. Obama said. “We are encouraging offshore exploration and production.”

What the Obama administration neglects to point out, however, is that this expanded production is the result of policies implemented during the administration of former president George W. Bush. And while Mr. Obama announced a modest expansion of offshore drilling a year ago – he reversed course and imposed a six-month moratorium on new leases in the wake of the BP oil spill last summer. Also, earlier this month U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar told reporters that the “Obama moratorium” would be extended to cover the duration of the president’s first term in office.
So much for supporting expanded “exploration and production.”

More importantly, Mr. Obama neglected to mention that the EIA figures he used to highlight increases in domestic production in 2009 and 2010 show projected decreases in production in 2011 and 2012 – thanks to his policies. He also failed to point out that domestic oil production remains 20 percent below its mid-1990 levels.

In addition to his hostility toward offshore drilling, Mr. Obama opposes oil exploration within the 19-million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as exploration beneath the Arctic Circle – where 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil are waiting, according to a 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report.

Not only that, leaked documents from the U.S. Department of Interior show that the Obama administration is considering closing off huge swaths of the Western United States to energy exploration – without Congressional approval or the consent of local authorities.

According to a 2009 study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), there are currently 167 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the United States – or enough to replace current OPEC imports for more than 75 years. Why are our leaders not using – and seeking to expand – this supply?

Also, why are we not more efficiently managing our existing oil supply? Mr. Obama has wasted billions of dollars sending green jobs overseas in pursuit of costly, inefficient energy alternatives, but what has he done to make better use of our existing energy sources?

According to Jerry Taylor – a senior fellow at the Cato Institute– simply increasing the aggregate extraction rate in existing oil fields from 35 to 40 percent would “be the equivalent of adding two Saudi Arabias to the global market.”

Americans are indeed “tired of talk” when it comes to rising gas prices. They are ready for Mr. Obama to allow supply to increase and lower those prices – before they become an even bigger drain on our economy.

Howard Rich is the Chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_howard_rich/obama_on_oil_more_misleading_rhetoric

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a "single European transport area" aimed at enforcing "a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers" by 2050.

The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.

Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of "zero" for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.

"That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres," he said. "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour."The Association of British Drivers rejected the proposal to ban cars as economically disastrous and as a "crazy" restriction on mobility.

"I suggest that he goes and finds himself a space in the local mental asylum," said Hugh Bladon, a spokesman for the BDA.

"If he wants to bring everywhere to a grinding halt and to plunge us into a new dark age, he is on the right track. We have to keep things moving. The man is off his rocker."

Mr Kallas has denied that the EU plan to cut car use by half over the next 20 years, before a total ban in 2050, will limit personal mobility or reduce Europe's economic competitiveness.

"Curbing mobility is not an option, neither is business as usual. We can break the transport system's dependence on oil without sacrificing its efficiency and compromising mobility. It can be win-win," he claimed.

Christopher Monckton, Ukip's transport spokesman said: "The EU must be living in an alternate reality, where they can spend trillions and ban people from their cars.

"This sort of greenwashing grandstanding adds nothing and merely highlights their grandiose ambitions."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8411336/EU-to-ban-cars-from-cities-by-2050.html?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d916a15e0f7d751%2C0

Discover (R) Small Business Watch (SM)

45% of Owners Whose Profitability Suffered in Downturn Don't Expect Sustained Recovery for Another Year; Two-Thirds of All Owners Likely to Tap Personal Assets

GAS PRICES: 76% Say Rising Fuel Prices Affect Profitability

If the overall economy is improving in 2011, small business owners aren't feeling it. Their outlook on the direction of the economy and the climate for their particular businesses has been in decline since January, and more than half of them have rated the economy as poor for 19 consecutive months, according to the March Discover(R) Small Business Watch(SM). The monthly barometer of economic confidence dropped to 86.5 in March, down from 90.2 in February.

"Our surveys have shown that the economic events of the recent past have hit small businesses hard, and many are still struggling to sustain an individual recovery of their own," said Ryan Scully, director of Discover's business credit card. "Nearly a third of small business owners told us they have contemplated going out of business sometime during the past two months, which is up from spring of 2008."

March Confidence Indicators

-- 54 percent of small business owners said the U.S. economy is getting worse, up from 41 percent in February and the highest since September 2010; 27 percent of small business owners said conditions are improving, down from 34 percent; and 15 percent said conditions are the same, down from 20 percent in February.

-- Small business owners' outlook for their own businesses over the next six months also declined: 42 percent say conditions are getting worse, up from 40 percent in February; 30 percent say conditions are getting better, down from 33 percent; and 24 percent say conditions are the same, down from 25 percent.

-- 56 percent rate the current U.S. economy as poor, equal to February; 35 percent rate it fair, up from 32 percent; 6 percent rate it good, down from 7 percent; and 3 percent rate it excellent, unchanged from the prior month.

-- On the upside, fewer small business owners report temporary cash flow issues. Over the past 90 days, 52 percent of small business owners reported no temporary cash flow issues that affected their ability to pay bills on time, up from 46 percent in February; 43 percent of small business owners reported having cash flow issues, down from 50 percent.

-- 29 percent of small business owners plan to increase spending on business development in the next six month, up from 28 percent in February; 40 percent will decrease spending, down from 41 percent last month; and 27 percent say they will make no changes, down from 30 percent last month.

Profitability Hurt by Downturn, 14% May Never Recover

Seventy-seven percent of small business owners said their profitability was hurt by the economic climate of the past three years, and only 22 percent of that group has experienced a sustained recovery, while 57 percent have not, and 21 percent aren't sure.

Among those who have not experienced a comeback for their businesses, 14 percent said they may never recover, 45 percent expect it to take more than a year, 16 percent say they will recover in six to 12 months, 10 percent predict three to six months and 7 percent are expecting a sustained recovery in the next three months. Only 1 percent said they are already experiencing recovery.

Two-thirds of small business owners, 66 percent, say it is very likely or somewhat likely that they will have to use personal assets in the next 12 months to stay in business, up from 61 percent who reported the same in October 2009.

The number of small business owners who extend credit to their customers has dropped: 27 percent said they extend credit, compared to 32 percent who extended credit in April 2008.

The news in March is slightly better for small business owners who extend credit: While 63 percent of small business owners now say customers have asked to delay a payment in the past three months, that number was up to 73 percent in April 2008.

Small Business Owners Feel Squeeze from Gas Prices

Seventy-six percent of small business owners say rising gasoline prices are affecting the profitability of their businesses. Of those, 90 percent say prices are having either a somewhat negative or very negative impact, which is on par with their sentiments in April 2008, when government statistics show that the national average for gasoline hovered near $3.42 per gallon.

See the full survey at www.discovercard.com/business/watch.

The views and opinions expressed by small business owners and consumers who participate in the Small Business Watch survey are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Discover Financial Services or its affiliates.

About the Small Business Watch

The Discover Small Business Watch is a monthly index measuring the relative economic confidence of U.S. small business owners who have less than five employees, a segment that consists of 22 million businesses producing more than a trillion dollars in annual receipts. The Watch is based on a national random survey of 750 small business owners. It is commissioned by Discover Business card, which strives to offer the best business credit card for American small businesses, and is conducted by Rasmussen Reports, LLC (www.rasmussenreports.com), an independent survey research firm. The numeric index is calculated by assigning values to responses to a set of five consistent questions. The base value of the Watch was established at 100.0 based on surveys conducted in August 2006. In addition to generating the index, the Small Business Watch surveys small business owners every month on key issues, and polls 3,000 consumers four times per year to gauge purchasing behavior and attitudes towards small businesses. For past results and survey data, visit www.discovercard.com/business/watch. For information on Discover Business card, visit www.discovercard.com/business.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/indexes/discover_small_business_watch/discover_r_small_business_watch_sm

WSJ.com - Opinion: A Very Bad Year

BY PETE DU PONT

A year ago today President Obama signed into law the broadest, most expensive, most intrusive health-care bill in our history.

So we the people are subject to a 2,700-page law that will cost us nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and will put the federal government, in charge of everyone's medical care. The bill appropriates in advance some $100 billion from now until 2020, making it more difficult for future Congresses or Presidents to defund it. The bill creates some 159 new government agencies to administer health care. As of Jan. 1, 2014, unless it is repealed, health care will be run, controlled, and totally supervised by Washington.

The federal government will soon mandate what it deems to be "essential" inclusions in health-care insurance. The increases in spending are already well under way. According to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, 48 states have already accepted around $1 million each from Washington to start planning their exchanges. Wisconsin and Kansas, which have Republican governors and are mong the majority of states suing to stop ObamaCare, have accepted, respectively, $38 million and $32 million from Washington to get their health-care information systems going. Never mind that the federal judge in a case they joined held ObamaCare unconstitutional.

And of course the new legislation also places a substantial Medicaid mandate on all 50 states. Cato Institute economist Jagadeesh Gokhale estimates that the largest cost would be for New York state, which must contribute $66 billion over the first 10 years.

Health-care payments in America have changed over time. In the past 40 years people's out-of-pocket spending has fallen from 50% of medical expenditures to 10%, while the portion picked up by private insurance companies has increased from 25% to 40%. The portion paid by Medicare and Medicaid--that is, by taxpayers--has increased from 25% to 50%. Medicare expenditures averaged $8,300 per beneficiary in 2006 and increased to $11,743 in 2009.

But more important are the changes ObamaCare imposes on the health-care economy, and the cost of the new government-run health care. Those who are putting their hopes on defunding Obamacare should know that the bill added appropriated items that will make it more difficult to defund. A look at the Congressional Research Service's appropriation analysis reveals an allocation of federal funding to 49 new or existing authorities, for a total of $103 billion, over 10 years. This money will be spent unless Congress passes new legislation reversing it.

Some of this is funded by taking considerable money out of existing programs and the Medicare trust fund. Examples: ObamaCare's Section 10203(d) appropriates $19.1 billion in fiscal 2014 and $21.1 billion in 2015 for the Children's Health Insurance Program. Section 3403 creates a 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board, and it takes $15 million to cover their 2012 costs out of the Medicare trust funds, and a similar amount--adjusted upward for inflation--for each subsequent year. Section 4202(b) takes Medicare money for a "Medicare prevention and wellness evaluation." Sections 6402(i) and another together take $350 million out of the Medicare Part A trust fund from 2011 through 2020. The list goes on. Ms. Sebelius was given way too much authority to spend pretty much as she likes, for whatever she likes. So defunding Obamacare is both important and very difficult.

A significant effort is underway to repeal ObamaCare. A majority of America's states have sued, and the House has voted to repeal it. One of the reasons is the massive complexity of the legislation; another is its huge cost, and again, the way the statute is drafted will make defunding nearly impossible.

Finally--and most important--is that the bill takes an individual's health care coverage and decision-making away, and replaces them with the federal government's decisions and regulation. The Europeanization of America is alive and well. Unless there is significant change, it will be with us forever.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703921204576217121723453418-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwODEyNDgyWj.html

Register Now: Regulatory Reform Update Call

Overregulation is a buzzword currently gaining traction among business leaders and lawmakers. But why is this issue receiving so much attention recently?

The sudden focus on regulations is due to the explosion of costly regulatory burdens that are harming small businesses and inhibiting job creation. Some regulations are necessary to ensuring there are clear rules for operating a complex society, but recently the regulatory process has lost all balance. Nearly all major regulations go into effect without our elected representatives in Congress ever voting on them, and federal agencies are enforcing countless regulations without transparency or accountability.

With more unnecessary and onerous regulations on the horizon, the U.S. Chamber is taking the lead in calling for expansive regulatory reform. Join us on
Wednesday, March 30, at 2:00 p.m. EDT, for a conference call on this important issue. Register for the call now.

On this call, our experts will discuss the importance of this issue to American businesses, what Congress and the U.S. Chamber are doing to reform excessive regulations and how the business community can get involved.

I hope you and your staff can join us for this timely call. Please contact us at federation@uschamber.com or 1-888-732-5228 with questions.

Sincerely,

Rob Engstrom
Vice President - U.S. Chamber of Commerce

DELDOT - growing in the wrong places?

By Dr. John E. Stapleford, director

Center for Economic Policy and Analysis, Caesar Rodney Institute

Over the past five fiscal years the operating budget of the Delaware Department of Transportation (DELDOT) has grown 18% while inflation rose 7%. So, DELDOT has been living large, yet the winners and losers inside the Department are curious.

The big winner with a 45% budget increase over the five years is the Motor Vehicles administration. Curiously, for those of us who have visited the DMV during the past year, according to their mission statement the DMV embraces “high standards of courteous, efficient and timely service.”

Other winners include the Office of the Secretary (24% increase), Technology and Support (19%), and Public Relations (16%).

Oddly enough, given all DELDOT’s questionable decisions on capital projects as revealed recently by the News Journal, among the big losers in the budget battle are Planning (a 1% increase) and Transportation Solutions (a 34% decrease). One key objective of Planning is to acquire real estate needed for protecting and improving the state's transportation system (e.g., a million dollars an acre for the closed Wright Chrysler dealership). And a key objective of Transportation Solutions is to ensure that DELDOT consistently delivers high-quality projects from concept through construction and ensure projects are completed on time as scheduled (e.g., the Indian River Bridge).

Although more information is needed before conclusions can be drawn, on the face of it one wonders if DELDOT should be spending less money on Public Relations and more money on the functions of Planning and Transportation Solutions.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=44scqeeab&v=0018iMS5L3VR6PffZ7B0W19MSYxzFQ7CA8Ei5jZ33cEvkLDHW8Jo85sQU5L_NOPmjQhFtptJo5HUSp-1BoYC_vY6QuwWLTj4c-mGIMhuBd4uQnj_KLiaSbMnQ%3D%3D

Gerald Celente

Many people claim to be able to see the future. Some are obviously more successful than others.

To confirm that a forecaster is credible, take a look at the accuracy of predictions made by that person in the recent past.

Here's a collection by famed forecaster Gerald Celente. A reasonable evaluation confirms that most of them have come true.

Based on Celente's past record of successfully gazing into the crystal ball and looking at his current predictions for the future, it is only prudent to be concerned. If you haven't already done so, now is the time to prepare yourself to the maximum extent possible.

"Gerald Celente, the head of the Trends Research Institute, the major trend-forecasting agency in the world, wrote in May of 2009 of the “bailout bubble.” Celente’s forecasts are not to be taken lightly, as he accurately predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the fall of the Soviet Union, the 1998 Russian economic collapse, the 1997 East Asian economic crisis, the 2000 Dot-Com bubble burst, the 2001 recession, the start of a recession in 2007 and the housing market collapse of 2008, among other things." Andrew Gavin Marshall

CLICK HERE TO SEE CELENTE'S PREDICTIONS BOTH PAST AND FUTURE

http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente-arch.html

Delaware housing: Sprinklers could become standard

Here's a great way to make the economy even worse. Drive housing costs up dramatically while few are able to buy anyway. This is also a good way to keep people in old homes that are far more likely to burn.

By Adam Taylor

Fire chiefs and code inspectors in New Castle County think sprinkler systems should be required in new houses and town homes because they save lives.

But homebuilders think the added expense would hurt their already depressed industry. And the local Habitat for Humanity chapter claims they could keep people out of safer new homes and in old ones that are fire hazards.

County Council is considering making sprinklers a requirement in new houses and town homes beginning in 2013. The change is part of the 2009 International Building Code, and county officials would like to incorporate into its rules.

"We liken smoke detectors to seat belts and sprinkler systems to air bags," county Land Use Administrator Joe Day said.

The change is on the agenda for Tuesday's council meeting, but County Executive Paul Clark would like to see it delayed for at least two weeks. Clark supports the change, but wants to try to get local water companies to waive an annual fee to homeowners if they don't use the sprinklers.<>

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110321/NEWS02/103210340

Health Reform Law: One Anniversary too Many

NFIB - Hear from the President:

Just when American small businesses thought things couldn’t get much worse, they’re realizing that President Obama’s health reform law has even more pain in store for them. And it’s not yet fully implemented.

One year after the law was signed, health insurance companies are “softening up” many small firms with unprecedented premium increases of 20 percent or more well in advance of deadlines that might boost prices. Even worse, many businesses are getting the rude letter from insurers that health plans the president said they could keep are being cancelled in anticipation of not meeting the law’s Cadillac standard required in 2014.

It’s not that these small-firm owners were expecting great things from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But they did have hopes that someone in Washington, D.C. had heard their pleas over the past 25 years for affordable health coverage for themselves and their employees.

As the nation’s primary creators of new jobs, they were wishful that additional burdens would not be heaped upon them while struggling to survive in the midst of a crushing economic recession. But neither the recession nor the high unemployment rate slowed the White House from mandating costly minimum benefits or limiting health savings accounts or slipping a tax paperwork demand into the law, costing them massive amounts of time to fulfill.

The hopes of small-business owners did get a boost recently when a U.S. District judge voided the entire health reform law, ruling it unconstitutional in a lawsuit filed by the National Federation of Independent Business and more than half of U.S. states. But the White House, intent on implementing the plan despite the ruling based on inviolable principles created by America’s founders, has not only appealed the ruling but has maintained its steady pace to force all citizens to buy health coverage whether they want it or not.

The U.S. House of Representatives raised small-business optimism when it voted to repeal the whole health law. But owners are keeping a wary eye on the Senate and even if that chamber gives the measure thumbs down, they know the odds of the president agreeing to repeal his own law are slim.

Last stop? The U.S. Supreme Court.

Small-business owners are hopeful that reasoning people who have actually read and understand the Constitution of the United States will agree with the basic tenets of democracy and free enterprise and shut this business buster down before it can cause even greater damage.

Even if victorious at the high court, those who have built small businesses, created jobs, and historically added significant strength to their nation’s financial stability cannot help but be dismayed at the astronomical waste of time, money and energy President Obama’s ill-conceived health law has cost them in just one year.

So don’t expect small business to celebrate Year One in the life of President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. They’re hoping this anniversary will be its last.

Dan Danner
President and CEO, NFIB

U.S. Chamber Launches New Regulatory Project

In our view, Delaware has exactly the same problem, in large part because of DNREC.

Most regulations are necessary to ensuring there are clear rules for operating a complex society. Economists, entrepreneurs and ordinary citizens all understand that balancing regulation with the need for economic growth is essential to ensuring the quality of life for Americans.

But excessively costly regulations are harming the economy and inhibiting job creation. “Regulatory uncertainty” is one reason employers are reluctant to hire and we’re witnessing a jobless recovery.

Compliance costs harm small businesses – the jobs engine of the economy – the most. Businesses with fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs 42% higher than larger businesses of up to 500 employees.

The average regulatory cost for each employee of a small business exceeds $10,000 per year.

And the problem is getting worse, as we are seeing an unprecedented increase in regulations:

• HHS is expected to release 30,000 pages of new healthcare regulations, many aimed at small employers.
• EPA is expanding its reach to carbon dioxide emissions by every business big and small.
• And 11 different agencies are drafting 243 new rules governing the cost and access to credit for businesses.

We Must Restore Balance to the Process and Fix What’s Broken

The process has lost all balance as Congress has yielded power to the federal agencies without proper accountability, and without taking responsibility for what the agencies are doing in Congress’s name.

These burdens are imposed through a system that operates without effective checks and balances, or accountability. Currently nearly all major regulations go into effect without our elected representatives in Congress ever voting on them.

What’s more, the agencies often are not transparent. Unaccountable agencies rarely have to justify decisions they make that harm the livelihoods of millions of Americans because the process does not allow for effective judicial or other independent review of major rules (lack of checks and balances).

Agencies can do this because they do not have to prove their assertions are based on sound fact, science or economics. Rather, all the agency must do is point to anything in the agency record that rationally supports their assertion, and the courts give the agency deference over the public in deciding the validity of the rule.

We must reform the process to make it more effective and accountable to the people to be sure regulations are of the highest quality.

There is a consensus emerging that we need more checks and balances to improve the process. Legislation is needed to ensure sensible regulation while also ensuring that federal agencies are held accountable to the people.

The Chamber Will Urge Reforms to the Regulatory Process

The Chamber’s Project on Regulatory Reform supports efforts to reform the process which include:

• Requiring that economic and employment impacts of major rules are independently evaluated and disclosed to the public so that the costs of rules are clear up front to everyone;
• Providing measures for affected members of the public to obtain effective independent review of agency actions by affected members of the public (checks and balances);
• Providing for an up-or-down recorded vote by Congress for regulations deemed to have a major impact on jobs; and
• Providing for independent periodic review of current regulations and sun-setting those deemed ineffective or unnecessary (additional checks and balances).

We are pleased that Congress is beginning to take action in this area, as evidenced by initial activity related to the REINS Act and others.

Our Project on Regulatory Reform will work to continually tell the story to the American people about the massive costs of procedural defects and excessive regulations on jobs and on their personal and economic freedom.

And we will work with Congress and the Administration to restore badly needed balance, restraint, and common sense to the regulatory process.