More Government Regulations Are Not the Answer

Statement

Fellow Idahoans,

One of the most common complaints I hear in Idaho is that our government regulates too much. Burdensome regulations stifle businesses and cost local governments precious tax dollars. New regulations on farm dust, new regulations on logging roads, new regulations on utilities--all increase costs to consumers and businesses, who must decide how these costs can be met. Under most scenarios, the costs are simply passed on to consumers, which is bad enough. But consider the latest news out of Texas, where an energy company simply couldn't comply with the latest mandates and had to shut down, leaving 500 people without jobs in a recession where every job is precious.

But these regulations are also just the tip of the iceberg. President Obama has more than 200 other regulations in the works and he has admitted that every single one of them will cost the economy more than $100,000,000.00.

As an example of the prevailing regulatory culture in Washington these days, at a hearing this past week I had the opportunity to question an opposing witness about his views on government regulation. He was asked what I thought was a "softball" question--to name one regulation that was not necessary or was overly burdensome. After racking his brain, he said he couldn't think of a single regulation that was not needed.

I am an ardent opponent of many new regulations, but am quick to recognize that regulation has a valuable place in our society. Unfortunately, we have recently gotten away from unbiased cost-benefit analysis of new regulations and begun to regulate for purely political reasons, or to drive changes in societal behavior.

But regardless of the witness's inability to think of even a single solitary unneeded regulation, what he said next was simply incomprehensible. He told me he believes that it was the regulators who are being oppressed. Although I was shocked to hear that instead of the American people being burdened by an overzealous bureaucracy, he believes it is actually the other way around. The actions of this administration do tend to underscore the message of that witness. Despite giving lip service to identifying burdensome regulations, they just keep coming.

Even when this administration is not issuing new regulations, it is pushing the boundaries of current law to new extremes. This past week I voted to pass H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act. This law became necessary when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decreed that Boeing could not operate a new plant which would bring new jobs to South Carolina because South Carolina is a Right to Work state.

Instead, the NRLB demanded that Boeing locate its new plant in a union state such as Washington. While this bill passed the House of Representatives, it faces an uncertain future in the Senate. In the meantime, thousands of jobs hang in the balance in South Carolina. What can never be calculated is the number of jobs that will never materialize because other companies have seen how this administration treats job creators.

Between new job-killing regulations and vindictive new administrative actions, the regulatory state is contributing to our economic uncertainty. With the passage of H.R. 2587, we have sent a signal to the American people that we are on their side. We are on the side of job growth and investment in the United States. And, unlike the Democrat's star witness, we can identify job killing regulatory actions and bring them to an end.

Source