Idaho politics: Simpson, Labrador support 'red tape reduction' bill

The symbolic congressional vote of the day? Perhaps.

Idaho's two House members joined the GOP majority in passing a bill designed to freeze costly federal regulations.

The Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act received a 245-172 yes vote Thursday, It would figure to face a dim future in the Democratic Senate, given its nearly party-line support in the House. As illustrated by this spiffy New York Times link, only 13 Democrats supported the bill, and only two Republicans opposed it.

Said 2nd Congressional District Rep. Mike Simpson in a news release: “I have been stunned by the volume of regulations promulgated by the current administration, and I am well aware of the economic impact these rules have on Idaho businesses.”

1st District Rep. Raul Labrador also voted yes.

Here's the full Simpson news release:

Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson supported legislation today that will help reduce the uncertainty plaguing our economy as a result of the Obama Administration’s excessive regulatory rule writing. H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act passed the House with a final vote of 245-172.

“I have been stunned by the volume of regulations promulgated by the current administration, and I am well aware of the economic impact these rules have on Idaho businesses,” said Simpson. “Our government needs to take a close look at the economic effects of federal mandates already being imposed, instead of saddling our job-creators and small businesses with even more burdensome and costly regulations.”

H.R. 4078 would freeze regulations that cost the economy $100 million or more until the unemployment rate stabilizes at or below 6 percent. It would also prevent a “lame duck” administration from issuing economically significant new rules.

Additional provisions of this bill:

• Require independent federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to comply with the same regulatory review requirements as other agencies and require increased transparency with respect to unfunded mandates that are imposed on state and local governments.

• Ensure that impacted parties have a right to intervene before federal agencies agree to binding legal settlements that require them to issue new regulations.

• Create a streamlined process for consideration of federal permits for construction projects.

• Require both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to conduct more thorough cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations.

The bill will now move to the Senate for consideration.

Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials. Become a follower. You can also get updates on Facebook's Idaho Statesman Opinion Page.

How does one measure this volume, I wonder?

Mr. Simpson went to Washington many moons ago, so he should know something about promulgating regulations and what-not. It must be really something to "stun" him. So, OK, without the vaguest consideration for the cost or the benefit of said regulations, tell us what the volume has been, and put it in context for the previous administration, and before, and before.

Lest we think you're just blowing smoke in a campaign year.

The good news seems to be the GOP-led House's penchant for passing bills they know will not make it to law. No stunning volume of regulations generated by 33 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, by golly!

"job-creators"

I am sooo tired of that stupid term.

Unless I am mistaken, jobs are created when someone needs more help to work for them because people are buying what they are selling. No buy, no jobs. The jobs are created when the workers' incomes are adequate to support a consumer driven economy such as ours. If trickle down worked, we wouldn't be in this situation. The economy tanked under shrub, not Obama.

You can cut taxes on the rich and cut red tape till the cows come home, but if folks can't afford to buy stuff, the whole thing stalls in the middle of the road. Middle class incomes (adjusted for inflation) have actually declined over the last decades while the friggin "job-creators" incomes are going through the roof...so they need tax breaks? That's nuts.

We need trickle-up, not trickle-down.

You are largely mistaken, seevee

While the financial health of the consumer is relevant to sales, supply must necessarily precede demand. Job creators are the people who imagine products and services they believe the consumer will at the very least find desirable to own/use if not essential to their happiness and well being. The "consumer" might be an individual, or it might also be a private business (large or small)a government agency, a hospital or medical clinic, a university, etc.

Government policies (taxes and regulations) can help or hinder this creative process, cause products to be less expensive or more expensive (it is almost always the latter), strengthen or destroy competition, or destroy entire industries.

We have a trickle down economy because the majority of us simply don't have what it takes to become a successful job creator.

Trickle Down Economy?

We have a trickle down economy due to income inequality. Let me be clear here, this has very little to do with one person making more than someone else. It has to do with the great majority of wealth being controlled by a precious few. If the wealth of a nation was more spread out there would be additional spending and increased demand for product. Essentially what we have now is too few people with disposable income to keep our economy going.

Wrong

I, like a majority of Americans, only have so much income. I don't sit around waiting for the next desirable product to be created and marketed by some imaginative "job creator" so I can but it. I buy what I absolutely need and nothing more. Perhaps if the economy picked up and my wages increased or if this country's wealth more evenly distributed I would have money to buy those products that I really don't need or want.
How insulting to yourself and the rest of us to say that we "don't have what it takes to become successful job creator(s)." If by that you mean money and privilege, then that's true. But plenty of us have creativity and motivation. But unless we can create very expensive products to be purchased by the upper 1% of consumers or the "essentials" for everyone else in an already crowded market, we don't stand much of a chance.
The notion of a trickle-down economy is a joke. Reagan sold it, people bought it, but it's not working.

We entrepreneurs love your negative vibe. Keeps the herd thin

If the suppliers become "too many", you specialize your product/service.

Some examples.

IT guy gets pink slipped he starts an enterprize specializing in POS, He is currently billing 40hrs/week in 3 states.

Layed off sign employee starts regional gas station re-branding service with a truck and $5000.

HVAC trade school student develops a booming furnace/ac business.

Bakery bought from bankruptcy booms with new gluten-free mail order service.

These are businesses started in the last 2 years by people I know. By specializing, their genius, has separated them from the "crowed market of sellers" . American ingenuity.

And what's your point...no one is arguing against innovation

or entrepreneurship, or even that ignorant phrase Romney trouts out 'punishing success'.

BTW, not all entrepreneurs are successful, and many leave debts behind for others to absorb. Heck, the MO for Romney's company Bain was to load up the companies they bought with debt, take their profits from that debt, then if the company struggled and couldn't recover under the debt load, it left others with the bad debt. If you admire that form of capitalism you obviously have no sense of personal morality or what is best for society at large.

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

Specialize your product. That was my point to R43G.

To set yourself apart.

Many models fail. You settle in court.

Many east Coast Democrat Mayors and Governors disagree with your points on Bain Cap. The election will be won here. You'll see.

Excuses, excuses R43G

I have the same problem with your comment as I had with Seevee's - a very self-centered analysis of our consumer-driven economy as if your personal needs and wants and buying habits are sufficient to explain its dynamic and complex nature.

I'm sorry if you found my post insulting, but I am not delusional enough to believe I could have been a Thomas Edison or Henry Ford, or a Bob Gates or Steve Jobs if only I had been born into money and privilege. Or forget these famous heavy weights (did any of them come from privileged backgrounds?) and instead think about the thousands of inventors/entrepreneurs who produced a product to address the need of a particular market and who never became rich and famous as a result of their efforts. I'm not aware of there being a huge demand among the upper 1% of consumers for hearing aids, blood pressure and blood sugar meters, X-ray machines, wheel chairs. I don't mean to get hung up on the medical device industry, but I think it exemplifies less known inventors of "gadgets" and equipment that have improved thousands of lives and in some cases saved lives while at the same time creating jobs for others.

Tell us, O creative one, what great idea are you sitting on that our trickle down economy is preventing you from acting on? I perceive your greatest talent is boxing yourself in.

What?

"I have the same problem with your comment as I had with Seevee's - a very self-centered analysis of our consumer-driven economy as if your personal needs and wants and buying habits are sufficient to explain its dynamic and complex nature."

I didn't say anything about "needs and wants and buying habits."

I'm talking about scratch... benjamins... moula. No money, no buy. It's not about needs and wants; it's about having or not having the dough ray me.

You are right that you

You are right that you didn't specifically mention your needs and wants and buying habits, but you did say the way to create jobs is to give existing workers better wages so they can buy more stuff which in turn will require businesses to hire more workers to manufacture and sell the stuff consumers want to buy. I'm assuming needs, wants, and buying habits fit into this scenario somewhere, including your own needs and wants.

You call this scenario a trickle-up economy, never mind that you still expect those bigger pay checks to come down to you from the business owner who bears all the burden for the cost of doing business of which wages and benefits are just one element, albeit a major element. In other words, there is no trickle up contribution to the economy on your part until the money trickles down from the job creator, the person you are sick and tired of hearing about and who you think should be paying higher taxes in addition to paying higher wages for his employees.

Does it concern you at all that your trickle-up economy would conceiveably create as many jobs in foreign countries as it would in the U.S.? That depends, of course, on how you spend those benjamins - buying material goods or on various kinds of services.

The bottom line

Do you think that it is a good thing that workers' earnings have declined over the last few decades while corporations and the 1% are raking in record earnings? I think people who think along your lines want to give corporations and the 1% even more net income and I don't see how that will ever translate into greater earnings for the rest of us. I mean, we've been doing the trickle down dance since Reagan, and that's when the downturn in middle class earnings started. I think the trend is unsustainable.

Wow. Regan/Clinton GDP growth is historic.

This was the age that the common man like me could buy stock.

New attitude from the '70's with real hope.

I'm sorry you missed the party.

USA GDP growth 1980 to 2000 56%.

You mean you can't geta piece of that. Don't make me call you a loser. Most women I know killed in those decades. What's a matter with you anyway.

We all bought stock, and the smart ones held after '87. I feel sorry for you and the fact you can't make it in a capitalist society.

Now I see smart young people scoring on low RE/int. rates and building the next generation of winners. Are you tired of watching us pass you by?

you slipped in the stream of the topic

You're missin my point. This isn't about GDP growth or playing the stock market; I'm talking about the lame idea that we need to distribute more wealth to the "job creators' instead of to the middle and lower cla$$es. I'm talking about job income, not investing. With college and health costs rising, and incomes flat, the average family is getting squeezed like a grape, and has little or no discretionary money left from paycheck to paycheck.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/us-household-income

Does the conservative element in this country even see this as a problem? And if so, what do they offer to fix it?

Income is distributed to the low/middle cla** through

our progressive regular income tax rates.

After the election the tax code will be tossed out, and a new pro-growth code will be designed. Less complicated and broader. You'll see.

I don't see Obama getting rid of a progressive tax

;)

The truth about declining wages

You might as well ask whether I think it is a good thing the United States has transitioned from being a manufacturing base to a service-oriented economy. This structural change in the labor market is the real reason for the so-called decline in wages, because exluding professional services (doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, and yes, even some CEOs), what we generally think of as service jobs are jobs in the lower wage brackets; always have been and probably always will be.

You are nothing if not a toe-the-line of the party kind of guy..

Or you choose to ignore the reality of economics, business and politics.

Let me guess...you found one book that supports your theory, so it's all true...

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

this would be the red tape

that helps protect our air, our water, the earth, our workers, our consumers, and our children?