Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Boehner: No more new Federal regulations!

UPDATE, 2:50 p.m.: DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen responds:

"Republican Leader Boehner's comments are Exhibit A of how Washington Republicans want to adopt the same policies that got us into this mess to begin with. You would think that - after the shenanigans on Wall Street, the West Virginia mine disaster, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- Republicans would put the interests of workers, tax payers, and consumers over the needs of big, corporate special interests and their Washington lobbyists. Sadly, that is not the case,"

Original post:

A day after calling for repeal of the new financial regulatory reform bill, John Boehner is going even further: He's calling for a moratorium on all new Federal regulations -- in the name of job creation.

Here's what he told reporters moments ago, per a transcript that was sent my way:

"I think having a moratorium on new federal regulations is a great idea it sends a wonderful signal to the private sector that they're going to have some breathing room."

And more:

"I think there's probably a way to do this with an exemption for emergency regulations that may be needed for some particular agency or another. But if the American people knew there was going to be a moratorium in effect for a year that the federal government wasn't going to issue thousands more regulations, it would give them some breathing room."

Does this mean a moratorium on new regulations overseeing, for instance, the oil industry? How would such a moratorium work, and by what mechanism would it be programmed to last only a year?

I'll bet you this is going to drive some discussion today. More when I learn it.

UPDATE, 1:11 p.m.: Boehner spokesman Michael Steel gets in touch to clarify that this moratorium would not apply to new regs for the oil industry.

"Boehner said at the same press event that we need to find out what happened in the Gulf and how we can make sure it never, ever happens again," Steel said. "So it is clear that would fall under the `emergency' regulations exception he described."

Asked how this would work, Steel said the idea had first surfaced today during the much-publicized meeting with trade groups, which was streamed online. He said it was too early to go into detail on how such a moratorium would function.

By Greg Sargent  |  July 16, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Categories:  Financial reform , House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Only Republicans like Sarah Palin
Next: Senator Vitter suggests Rachel Maddow only looked like a woman "a long time ago"

Comments

Here's a link with video of the GOP with their business buddies meeting.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/republicans-k-street-plan-tax-cuts-and-deregulation-under-future-gop-rule-video.php

I will say, the GOP does deserve the credit for televising that meeting, and it not turning into a total sham. Sure, there was plenty of Obama bashing and whining about oh-so-evil regulation...but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

That said, there are some pretty untennable positions being talked about in there. Let's hope Dems were watching, and taking notes on what to attack on.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 16, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I really have to thank Boehner. I was feeling so down about the outlook for Dems in Nov, but the more he talks, the more optimistic I get that perhaps we could still hold the House.

Guess McConnell was right that the GOP has their "groove back." Thankfully for the Dems, their "groove" is mindless championing of deregulation & tax cuts for the wealthy!

Posted by: OKeefePup | July 16, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I guess he REALLY DOESN'T GET how psychotic this sounds.

The funny thing is, whether he "gets it" or not, he simply DOESN'T CARE!

Un.REAL.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 16, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Dems have to seize the day here and forcefully make the argument in favor of robust regulatory structures that can prevent the slew of disasters we have seen in the last few years. The financial crises, the coal mine disaster in PA, and the oil spill in the Gulf practically make the argument for the Dems. All they have to do is call attention to it.

BTW, Boehner's new line is priceless: "give them some breathing room". Get ready to hear this phrase on repeat for as long as it takes. Dems don't have phrases as emotionally comforting and perfectly nonsensical as this. Maybe they need some.

Posted by: Adam_W | July 16, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg, I'm really getting tired of this one sided Fox bull crap voter intimidation overblown controversy.

Could you do this country a favor and remind everyone how Obama voters were being heckled and yelled at down in NC during early voting. And, I'll link to the Times article who has the two videos embedded.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/bellantoni/2008/Oct/20/mccain-supporters-call-early-voters-ch/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 16, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

So after we have all been gouged by credit card interest rates and bank bailouts, have had global warming denied by companies fighting regulation, have had our health care claims rejected after paying for insurance and having the Gulf destroyed all by a lack of oversight of corporations, it is time to stop regulating and give some more tax cuts! Couldn't say it better Boehner!!

Posted by: free-electron | July 16, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Boehner really needs to become the Congressman from Somalia.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 16, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

What is it about the "demand" portion of "supply and demand" that the Repubs just don't get? There is no demand out there right now.....you can hand companies all the tax breaks and "breathing room" you want and they STILL aren't going to hire workers they don't need.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 16, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Boehner is right. Regulation threats kill innovation and job growth.
Obama and his left-wing radicals in Congress keep harping on "going forward, not back"...well lets review what they mean by going forward; then you decide:

The Constitution….
Obama and cronies say it's archaic and out of date…
Conservatives think it's the greatest document ever devised by man for the governance of man.

Spending… Obama and cronies are for printing more money…
Conservatives think we ought to spend less

Taxes… Obama and cronies never saw a tax they didn’t like and want more…
Conservatives think about the Fair tax, the Flat tax and paying less taxes is GOOD for our economy.

Debt… Obama and cronies think owing our soul to China and Saudi Arabia is OK…
Conservatives think we should be debt free and should strive to payoff debt as well forego the creation of new debt like obamacare and the stimulous bills.

Big Government… Obama and cronies are for it and the idea of "collectivism" - some know is as Socialism…
Conservatices believe in individual freedom

The economy… Obama and cronies think things are better. 9.5% unemployment is "progress" 2.2% GDP is "good"…
Conservatives want more jobs and we’re worried about the States going bankrupt.

Education… Obama and cronies think it is fine and want to double down on this failure…
Conservatives think it has failed to help our kids. (And it should include American History.) The USA ranks 28th out of all developled nations yet we spend 4 times more per student. Do you think this is a success? It's not money, so what is it? will throwing more money at it fix it?

Obama wants to "move forward"...but his idea of moving forward is not the same as what most Americans think of as "moving forward". Collectivism or socialism has proven time again that it kill societies. I agree we need to "move forward" but not in the direct Obama and his left-wingnut cronies want to go. Nov 2010 is your chance to help change course and get us heading in the right direction.

Posted by: NO-bama | July 16, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

This is good news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38269502/ns/us_news/?from=toolbar

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 16, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

So, according to this update, the new regulation moratorium would be in effect unless there is an emergency. Except, of course, that means by definition, that we're not going to bother regulating anything until AFTER it caused an emergency & the damage is done. Brilliant! Vote GOP 2010!

Posted by: OKeefePup | July 16, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, what is it about GOPers that they think that the government should never "take your money" but they think it is ok for the banks to "take your money" with outrageous fees and charges and usurious interest rates. And its ok for business never to give you the fruits of your labors in the first place by holding down wages, shifting to temps and independent contractors and cutting benefits, to say nothing of just firing people.

Get with it, folks! The economy is in the tank because people don't have enough money to spend, hence demand is down and so business isn't hiring. Yes, demand was articifially goosed by the easy credit of the early and mid-naughts, but it is also being held down because of tax policies and predatory practices that exacerbate income inequality. If you have an AGI of over $350,000, congrats--you are in the top 3% or so. If you aren't above $115,000 or so you are in the bottom 90%, however. Think about whose interests your pet policies really serve.

Posted by: Mimikatz | July 16, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

If this clown and his party of lobbyists are concerned about jobs he should encourage his fellow Republicans to VOTE FOR THE JOBS BILL! I'm so tired of this party of phonies. By the way, since Wall Street and several other big busness is now making money, WHY NOT START HIRING NOW? Is it because they want to try and kill the Dems? At least it's clear who the GOP is concerned about. The wealthy. Shocking!

Posted by: roxsteady | July 16, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

@NB: Boehner is right. Regulation threats kill innovation and job growth.

Yeah, the lack of regulation of off shore drilling that led to the gulf catastrophe (that will continue for years if not decades because of the pollution of the spawning grounds of at least 1/2 of the commercial fish in the Atlantic) has really boosted the economy in the gulf states, especially tourism, one of their biggest industries. I am sure the dead coal miners' families and the dead rig workers' families really appreciate what less regulation did for them. Somehow despite the stalinist regulatory scheme in place during the Clinton years, we managed to build the internet into a global information and commerce giant, radically increase the number and decrease the cost of personal computing, and create 8 times as many jobs as GWB did during his reign of terror.

"Debt… Obama and cronies think owing our soul to China and Saudi Arabia is OK…Conservatives think we should be debt free and should strive to payoff debt as well forego the creation of new debt like obamacare and the stimulous bills."

Wasn't it Cheney, the famous socialist who said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."? Somehow the famous conservative GWB did more deficit spending and created more debt than all previous presidents combined and still managed to put the economy into the worst economic fall since the great depression. We can add Kyl, McConnell and the rest of the republicans to the list of budget lunatics. "Tax cuts don't have to be paid for but spending like unemployment extensions absolutely have to be paid for." ???????? WTF???? This defies any logic and the rules of mathematics.

"The economy… Obama and cronies think things are better. 9.5% unemployment is "progress" 2.2% GDP is "good"…
Conservatives want more jobs and we’re worried about the States going bankrupt."

That's why conservatives voted en mass against the stimulus that was about 1/3 aid to state and local governments. 9.5% is a lot better than 12% which is the estimate of unemployment if the stimulus wasn't enacted. 2.2% growth is better than contraction which is where Bush left the economy.

I could do refute every point you made but I have more important things to do...

Posted by: srw3 | July 16, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Boehner said at the same press event that we need to find out what happened in the Gulf and how we can make sure it never, ever happens again," Steel said.


Haven't they read the news on the cause of the oil leak in the Gulf. Sounds like they were in the cave at the time. Let's not forget Barbour's comment that it was the first time that it happened. Not true because he left out the other event such as the 1979 that spew oil for 10 months.

Posted by: beeker25 | July 16, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Whoa a minute!! Boehner was elected President?????

Posted by: pkbishop1 | July 16, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

This is addressed to free election! TAXES ARE THEIR LOWEST SINCE TRUMAN WAS IN OFFICE! GOT THAT? The tax cuts that the "Tan Man" as Ed Shultz calls him are the Bush tax cuts for the rich that will expire next year. That's who Boner is talking about. NOT YOU, NOT US!

Posted by: roxsteady | July 16, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

You know what else gave American businesses some breathing room? The stimulus.

Posted by: simpleton1 | July 16, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Boner is still as dumb as a bag of sticks!

Posted by: roxsteady | July 16, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

So how about the Wall Street Heist not ever happening again?

How about the bank failures not ever happening again?

How about the housing industry not ever collapsing again?

How about people not ever going without basic medical care again?

Boehner's mouthpiece should clarify which exact areas should be under the moratorium otherwise we'll have the crow-fest and crow-feast and shoe-in-the-mouth and clarifying what was said and what was meant and what was implied until cows come home.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 16, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steel?

Heard this name before! Don't know where but remember having a laugh or two.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 16, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Boehner: No more new Federal regulations!"

This is a gift from the gods for Obama and the Dems and if they don't seize it they are f-ing retards. This presents the partisan contrast in sharp relief. The GOP wants Big Business and the SuperRich controlling the nation. Hey Dems Government is good. Regular people are good. Say it as if you mean it. Say it over and over. Use the Wall Street money grab; use the Gulf Oil Disaster. Use every and any example that pops into your head and beat the Republicans like a drum. This is the the ballgame;this is the war. Republicans are against regular people. Republicans are the water-carriers for the Greedy Rich Pigs ruining the country. Democrats are for regular people. DON'T LET THIS OPPORTUNITY PASS.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 16, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Semi-OT:

Axelrod: Warren isn't a shoo-in

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39853.html

If Warren is not named head of the new consumer protection agency the White House "Professionals" are even dumber than I think they are.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 16, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Well hopefully i can find some third party candidates to vote for in Nov because brother boner gump just put the nail in the Republicans coffin for me.

they have a few good days in the polls and it goes right to their heads.

Well momma always used to say "Stupid is as stupid does"

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | July 16, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

What does Boehner consider a "new regulation"? Any change in the Code of Federal Regulations?

Does Boehner think that consumer and environmental groups hold such sway in D.C. that every agency is busy adopting new regulations to satisfy those groups?

Here are other reasons agencies adopt new rules:

#1: Congress told them to.

#2: Courts told them to (often because the agency failed to do so after Congress told them to).

#3: Business asked them to. Businesses are constantly lobbying for changes to regulations, including the creation of exceptions to existing regulations.

If Boehner thinks we can just stop adopting new regulations, he is dumber than I thought.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | July 16, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

If the tax-cuts for the rich are ended, that would constitute a new Federal Regulation, wouldn't it?

Posted by: kishorgala | July 16, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

PennyWise, welcome to the Big Tent -- aka life outside the influence of the extremist GOP.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Boehner's ideas is a good one politically for a couple of reasons.  First it's a simple message easily repeated, to paraphrase: "business fear of new, massive, profit killing government regulation is strangeling any recovery and killing new jobs.".  Barry's had 18 months,  a massive stimulus that polls are showing people did not think worked, and an Administration touting all the new rules and regulations it's implementing. 33% of respondents in the latest WaPo poll didn't even know what the Fin Reg bill is/was, but some of them have been out of work for a long time, as long as Barry's been in office and have not seen improvement. Boehner gives them something to hang their frustration on .

I'm happy to discuss the value or economic impact of regulations or the lack thereof, I'm weird that way and like the minutia. But what's Barry gonna say?  "Yeah, all the new government regulations are good and not the reason you've been out of work for two years, coincidentally the same amount of time I've been in office.  And let me get into the details of our new financial regulations you didn't even know existed?"

  No one cares about how these rules may benefit the Snail Darter or prevent excessive derivative trading, someone is saying their inhibiting job growth and I need a job.  You've had 18 months and you've written  a bunch of rules.  I still dont have a job.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks that allowing oil rigs to be built without proper blow out preventers, or that obscene derivative trading will create jobs is simply wrong.

Regulation comes with capitalism, and is an important part of it.

I wonder if trollmcwingnut (his chosen name, not mine) would mind if regulations that prohibit chemical waste from being dumped into his water supply were repealed, or never enacted?

This is a gift to the Democrats, and one that the Tea Party seems to assure will keep on coming as the Republicans try to appeal to the TP crowd, many whom would also be upset without any regulations that protect their savings and childrens' health.


Posted by: kimoco2 | July 16, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Troll is sounding like a top level GOP operative -- who cares about good policy, all that matters is good politics.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | July 16, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

@First Read:

According to last month's NBC/WSJ poll:

65% said they wanted more regulation for the oil industry (versus 16% who want less)

57% want more regulation for Wall Street firms (compared with 15% who want less)

53% want more regulation for big corporations (versus 21% who want less)

and 52% want more regulation for the health-care industry (compared with 27% who want less).

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/16/4690835-boehner-calls-for-less-regulation-public-calls-for-more-

This may be Boenher's biggest "boehner" yet.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 16, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"someone is saying their inhibiting job growth and I need a job. You've had 18 months and you've written a bunch of rules. I still dont have a job."

Wow. You don't have much respect for the intellectual capabilities of your fellow Americans, do you?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 16, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"UPDATE, 2:50 p.m.: DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen responds"

You know, I'm hearing some good content these days from the DCCC. The problem is that nobody pays attention to anyone in the party in power except the president. The president makes the news. I'd sure like a statement from the White House on this.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 16, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Who can possibly disagree with Boehner? Let's see:

1. Deregulate the financial sector: Worked great didn't it. Cost us what a mere 1-2 trillions?

2. Deregulate the oil industry is obviously working wonderfully, isn't it? Should we ALL pull a Barton and apologize, or what?

3. 'Unfortunately' I am not in one of the states where the health insurers sent out the 40% rate increase notices. I guess some people are eager to move there, right?

4. Deregulating the credit card companies has really helped consumers hasn't it? Are we all grateful for all the fees, or what?

Obviously the Republicans/Conservatives/and the like think we are all stupid.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | July 16, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Maybe if those Republicans stopped robbing the hell out of us, we wouldn't need any new regulations.

Posted by: HemiHead66 | July 16, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Winning is what matters as you all know. I'm saying that that messaging has the benefits of being true ( in my opinion) as well easy to repeat and has resonance.

Again, I'll argue the value of regulations all day long, I like to, the point is that Boehner's message will resonate better than Barry' alphabet soup of new federal agencies that have yet to provide the unemployed with work.

As far as drilling regulation goes, I'm pretty sure BP violated a bunch, so if you can explain to me how a bunch of new regs that won't be enforced is better than the existing regs that were not enforced, I'm all ears. And obviously, unless we add 
Reams of new federal regulations on a daily basis, on top of the one that already exist, the Republic Will fall.   And could you point out where Boehner or I said that all regulations should be rolled back?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Boehner. When an oil well blows up and kills 11 people and spills in the ocean for two straight months, we have to employee hundreds of people to pick the oil off the beach. That's a great way to grow the economy. All those lazy unemployed people should be able to get jobs picking up oil off the beach. It is good honest work.

Posted by: ATLGuy | July 16, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

@tmwn:Boehner's message will resonate better than Barry' alphabet soup of new federal agencies that have yet to provide the unemployed with work.

I think the link between less regulation and more jobs is pretty weak in the minds of most voters, but I could be wrong.

Still, I'll put Obama's desire to extend unemployment benefits and allowing the tax rates to return to clinton levels on the over $250k crowd, against Boner's opposition to extension and extending the budget busting tax cuts for the wealthy any day in the court of public opinion.

Posted by: srw3 | July 16, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"the point is that Boehner's message will resonate better than Barry' alphabet soup of new federal agencies that have yet to provide the unemployed with work"

So basically what you're saying in that comment is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 16, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Boehner spokesman: He said it was too early to go into detail on how such a moratorium would function.

Translation: This idea was not thought out and we absolutely no idea how to implement it, but it makes a good soundbite.

I am sure it will go the way of the republican health care plan (no numbers, no plan) and the Ryan blueprint for fiscal rectitude (only the permanent residents of rightwingnutistan like Angle even acknowledge that Ryan's plan even exists and that it is a good idea even though Ryan is the ranking member on the budget committee.)

Posted by: srw3 | July 16, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

This is what happens when one walks into a battle of wits, unarmed.

"The Constitution….
Obama and cronies say it's archaic and out of date…
Conservatives think it's the greatest document ever devised by man for the governance of man.
"Posted by: NO-bama | July 16, 2010 1:25 PM"

Conservatives couldn't shred our Constitution quick enough with the Bush Jr/Cheney policies of

The "Patriot" Act

Warrantless spying on US citizens

Torture as official US policy

Indefinite detention

Suspension of habeas corpus

Try again, but preferably without such easily-debunked nonsense and blather.

Posted by: kingcranky | July 16, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

there are a couple of things here that the liberals just don't get.

First, Americans are smart enough to realize that the existing regulations failed in two important instances.

the SEC and the MMS screwed the pooch and the pattern is clear: inattentive employees who were too cosy with the regulatees. Nothing Chris the Crook or Barney the shiboleth write into law will change that.

The problem for liberals is obvious. They are unalterably in favor of larger government intrusion into the private affairs of Americans. Yet the instrusions have not produced the kind of nirvanah the liberals desire. Americans are quickly understanding that the regulatory regime will restrict our freedoms, drive up the cost of government and yeild little benefit to the citizens.

68,000 federal register pages each year is not freedom. And it is not working.

Next, I'm seeing a sea change here. It is the progressive who are now clamoring to maintain the status quo while conservatives are advancing a new and somewhat radical agenda.

the problem that liberals have with the Boehner statements is that they are too far from their beloved positions. It is completely OK for the liberals to be radical about marriage, abortion, sex education, what have you. According to the commenters here, it is not OK for conservatives to advance dramatically new ideas.
Boo hoo. There is a competition in america and the best ideas win. The liberal agenda is old, trite and ineffective. We understand that. But if that's all you've known, all you've been taught, you'll cling to that skinny reed.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 16, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Can we please get a moratorium on this moron.

Posted by: raca1234 | July 16, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010,

"So basically what you're saying in that comment is that you have no idea what you're talking about."

Correct. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 16, 2010 3:38 PM

It wasn't liberal policies that drove our country into a ditch during the Bush Jr/Cheney administration, it was extremism of the "conservative" sort.

Govt. deregulation and industrial self-regulation NEVER do right by consumers, investors, patients and policy-holders, or the country at large, as witnessed by the financial industry's meltdown.

People would have to be insane to insist on more of the Bush Jr/Cheney policies, and giving the GOP the keys to the kingdom, after the damage they inflicted on our country, with majorities in the House and Senate makes about as much sense as trusting Kim Jong-Il.

It wasn't conservative policies that grew our middle class after WWII.

When they don't mind fewer regulations of the medications they take, or the vehicles they use, only then should the "less regulation is better" crowd be given any positive attention.

Posted by: kingcranky | July 16, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat,

I have enourmous respect for the 60-70% of the voting electorate that is partisan. I am less respectfull of the the remaining 30-40% of the voting electorate that is non-partisan. I think those are the low info voters and are more susceptible to a sound-bite than a well reasoned arguement. If I want an agenda enacted or reversed, I have to get a chunk of the uniformed to counter the well informed opposition. I think pinning high unemployment in some part to excessive regulation and the fear over future regulation is both true and easier to sell that explaining to someone who has not idea about the financial regulations bill how it controls derivative trading. It's 2300 page bill. No one really knows whats in it, if they know about it at all. Explaining it is manifestly difficult, like trying to say if we didn't do it, things would be worse. It just does not resonate.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, yeah.

kingcranky earned his name. And he cannot reply to my very valid point: regulation failed us massively twice in recent memory.

Where was the SEC while the guys on wall street were doing what they were doing? Oh yeah, watching porn on the internet.

Where was the MMS when BP was doing what it was doing? Oh yeah, watching porn on the internet and accepting gifts from the oil guys.

You just can't face it, which is your problem. Ultimately regulations fail. As I stated nothing in the new laws will change human nature. These alphabet soup agencies just make work for public nipple suckers and the accountants and lawyers hired by the firms. Instead of finding innovative new products companies must waste money attempting to comply with a mass of confusion.

Here's a perfect example: some of the delay in dealing with the oil spill arose because the agencies themselves didn't know how to comply with their own regs. Further, the regs were so stringently applied that viable solutions were ignored.

Am I saying "no regulation"? No, let me head that straw man off right now. but I will say this repeatedly: 68,000 new pages of regulation year after year is not freedom and taken as a whole they are killing our economy.

Spare me the partisan rhetoric. The facts are clear, the government is an expensive failure.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 16, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I respect Leader Boehner, but -- respectfully -- it is a fact that LACK of government regulation of the multi-trillion dollar derivitives market is what nearly plunged the entire world into a second Great Depression in 2008 -- necessitating the hundreds of billions of dollars in government bailouts provided by George W. Bush/Treasury Secretary Paulson and other world leaders.

Why does Leader Boehner think we should "repeal" the new law regulating these derivatives? I'm confused.

Posted by: paul65 | July 16, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28,

I gotta say, "nipple suckers" made me laugh. I'm used to the "government teat" arguement but somehow your's is more, er, linguistically descriptive.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"while conservatives are advancing a new and somewhat radical agenda."

Tax cuts and less regulation. Wow. Super new and radical. What...were you hatched from an egg 5 minutes ago? This is the same, tired rhetoric the GOP has been selling for 30 yrs.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 16, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

paul65,

" respect Leader Boehner, but -- respectfully -- it is a fact that LACK of government regulation of the multi-trillion dollar derivitives market is what nearly plunged the entire world into a second Great Depression in 2008 -- necessitating the hundreds of billions of dollars in government bailouts provided by George W. Bush/Treasury Secretary Paulson and other world leaders." Derivatives based on / backstopped by mortgage backed securities issued by Fannie and Freddie and rated as triple A, against banking and housing regulations I might add, by companies like Moody's. And while Bush certainly asked for and lobbied for TARP, the current administration's leader did also, and spent it as well.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"It is the progressive who are now clamoring to maintain the status quo while conservatives are advancing a new and somewhat radical agenda."

That's exactly what I said earlier Skippy.

We prefer governance by the Constitution and democratically-elected representatives, as the Founders wanted it.

You prefer something that more closely resembles anarchy.

I'm glad we agree.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 16, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Barton and Boehner and Blunt: Oh My!

Palin and Bachman and Rove: Oh My!

Clearly, these Republican noise boxes represent the Lollipop Guild.

Petroleum-flavored lollipops, anyone?

Posted by: lonquest | July 16, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse


Careful skipsailing28,

To paraphrase the great Yoda, "The Strawman powers are strong in this one."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

PennyWise, welcome to the Big Tent -- aka life outside the influence of the extremist GOP.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse


*********************************************
Was not in the GOP Ethan was a democrat who decided i did not like some of obamas policy's and left to become an Independent.

I consider both parties pretty darn unfriendly to the middle class but the Republicans seem to be listening to the crazy part of their party and doing everything they can to sabotage themselves for November.

One party wants to give to the obscenely rich and one party wants to give everything to illegal aliens while you both forget about the middle class which is shrinking daily and nobody is listening.

While i do not buy into the corporate backed tea party i do believe we do need a third party in this country to look after the middle class and working poor family's and neither party at the moment fits that bill.

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | July 16, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"I think pinning high unemployment in some part to excessive regulation and the fear over future regulation is both true and easier to sell that explaining to someone who has not idea about the financial regulations bill how it controls derivative trading."

What makes you think that this will be the point/counterpoint? It's easy to counter Boehner's ridiculous suggestion: How about some pictures of oil covered animals? How about showing people who have been devastated by the spill? How about a commercial featuring those who lost loved ones in the W. Va. mine explosion? How about featuring someone who has been able to purchase insurance despite their pre-existing health condition?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 16, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"Where was the SEC while the guys on wall street were doing what they were doing? Oh yeah, watching porn on the internet.

Where was the MMS when BP was doing what it was doing? Oh yeah, watching porn on the internet and accepting gifts from the oil guys."

And who has been in charge of the government 20 of the last 30 yrs? How about 8 of the last 10? The Repub scam is easy: you run the government incompetently and then you get to turn around and say "See? I told you the government doesn't work!".

I always thought it was silly that the Repubs would pick W - an MBA with three failed businesses under his belt - as their nominee. Then I realized that was the point - they were hoping he would do to government what he did in the private sector. Looks like they got what they wanted - he really somehow managed to mess up everything he laid his hands on in 8 yrs. Congratulations.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 16, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat,

"What makes you think that this will be the point/counterpoint? It's easy to counter Boehner's ridiculous suggestion: How about some pictures of oil covered animals? How about showing people who have been devastated by the spill? How about a commercial featuring those who lost loved ones in the W. Va. mine explosion? How about featuring someone who has been able to purchase insurance despite their pre-existing health condition?"

I did not say that it was the only counterpoint, just that Barry's love for regulation and how it can stifle growth and jobs resonates better than trying to explain the Fin Reg bill to the 1/3 of the the electorate- that either side needs to win- has never heard of.

As far as showing dead birds, I have been stunned at the lack of 24 hour coverage of the oilspill and the damage it's creating. I'm also well aware that virtually everything that went wrong on the Macondo well was in fact in violatiion of government regulations, so while it may be effective to blame the BP spill on deregulation (i have not seen the electoral chances of the Democratic Party improve because of it) it isn't necessarily true. As well as the mining disasters, including the most recent, the after incident reports relate a host of regulatory violations, again, we can argue about it's effectiveness electoraly, but not about it's effectiveness in practice.

I'm not getting how ObamaCare fits in as an example of where Boehners regulation moratorium is a bad policy for Republican electoral chances as he has said repeatedly that he would work to repeal and/or defund it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat,

I know that this was directed at skipsailor: "And who has been in charge of the government 20 of the last 30 yrs? How about 8 of the last 10? The Repub scam is easy: you run the government incompetently and then you get to turn around and say "See? I told you the government doesn't work!".


I look at government as innately incompetent and corrupt and the only way to lessen said burden is to lessen it's size and influence. That's a difference in world view. So from a standpoint of Republican or Democratic Executive Branch administration, they will both result in the same thing, more incompetence and corruption, so long as the government and it's influence grows. The Democrats did use the competnency argue in part to help get Barry elected, I do not know what kind of impact it has had on the electorate but the BP spill and previous mining deaths, tragic to be sure, do not necessarily leave an impression of Obama / Democratic competency in the minds of some voters.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

the position of the american left is that proper regulation, properly applied will solve the vast majority of the challenges Americans face.

Its a nice theory, it just isn't supported by the actual facts.

Even here on this thread we see boasts that the wall street meltdown will never occur again. Or that the oil rig failure will never occur again. these promises simply cannot be kept.

Currently I'm reading Machievelli. His words resonate to this day because he speaks to human nature. And human nature mitigates against the regulatariat.

Why? there are a variety of reasons but three come to mind:

first, the employees of the regulating agency must be attentive to their tasks. It is always the case that inattention is the end state for most people. Keeping employees focused is a major challenge for many business managers. Now try keeping people focused on minute details that matter to only a few people. Now add in the fact that the employees KNOW that they cannot be fired and failure is looming large.

Next, the folks that the regulators spend the most time with are the regulatees. Whether it is some state's Public Utilities Commission or the MMS, the simple fact is that relationships arise between the two groups. The PUC folks may be hired to protect the public at large, but it is Larry from the electric company that the interact with routinely. This familiarity lessens the efficacy of regulation, especially punitive, poorly written regulation.

Finally we have a problem that is intrinsic to our republic. Right now we are sustaining a massive standing government. The number of unaccountable, unelected, unappointed, unconfirmed employees of the Federal Government boggles the mind.

And what do these hoards of employees want? they want to keep their jobs. So when liberals proclaim that smarter people at the top will make these agencies perform better they are kidding themselves. The agencies are so large and so politically connected that they will respond to very little outside influence.

we've seen examples of this with the poor NIE during the Bush years that has been proven completely wrong and of course the way Fannie intimidated or supported who it chose in the political arena is legend now.

It is no accident that Obama and Dodd recieved massive financial support from Fannie and now Fannie is not regulated by the new bill.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Regulation won't work ultimately. It can help in some cases but human nature mitigates against it. We're seeing diminishing returns from this approach today.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 16, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Here's one more very valid proof of my contention that regulation is nothing more than an expensive failure.

These are the words of Chris the Crook Dodd. Read them and weep:
"“It is not a perfect bill, I will be the first to admit that,’’ Dodd said. “It will take the next economic crisis, as certainly it will come, to determine whether or not the provisions of this bill will actually provide this generation or the next generation of regulators with the tools necessary to minimize the effects of that crisis.’’"

Got that guys? Dodd doesn't actually know if this will stave off the next crisis. But liberals have promised us that passing this bill will insure no further problems from Wall Street. Isn't that what Obama said?

Can you handle the truth gang? Because there it is, straight from the horse's arse.

So we'll spend a fortune on new employees, the banks will spend a fortune lobbying for and then complying with new regulations, and Chris Dodd, the author of the bill, can't tell is that it will work.

yeah, there's a confidence inspiring message!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 16, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Skipsailing,

I just read that and was going to link to a Boston Globe and WSR article that said it! Thanks for beating my to the punch.

there is a new thread up and I took the liberty of cutting and pasting most of your previous post on Machiavelli and government regulators in response to an Ethan2010 post on how the mining industry needs new/more regulations becuasue of the recent disaster where over 20 miners were killed. Neither article discussed which regulations were or were not enforced or even if any regulations were violated, let alone how more regulation would have helped. I said that if anything, the ongoing criminal probe speaks volumes about existing regulations being violated else why have a proble of violating no-existant regulations. Instead, Ethan2010 probably is arguing for better enforcement of regulations. We can argue about enforcment (though I think you handle that very well) but it is distinctly different from enforcement.

Just wanted to let you know.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 16, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans never screamed about job losses during the Bush administration and we only have to check history to see what happened.

It is time for Washington to get new industries created and viable. It is obvious we cannot depend on corporations - they are the ones that moved off shore. The low wages that corporations pay to overseas workers only increases corporate salaries and bonuses. While the prices corporations charge us only goes up.

Check out below article for history.


US suffers largest job loss since February 1991

May 5, 2001 ... The loss of factory jobs, a trend since April 1998, ... The decline in this category since September 2000 by 11 percent (370000 jobs) is one ... ...

www.wsws.org

Read more: http://jobs.kosmix.com/topic/Job_Losses_Since_2000?p=hl&as=yhoo&ac=432#ixzz0tssCkoNt

Posted by: laurabar57 | July 16, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

@TMWN and SS28: It is typical for you guys to blame the lack of enforcement of regulations on the regulations and not on the incompetent, industry friendly, let industries regulate themselves, people that republicans regularly put in charge of regulatory agencies.

Its like blaming FEMA regulations for the Katrina debacle instead of "heck of a job" Brownie, who clearly had absolutely no business being in charge of anything.

As for the coke sniffing, lobbyist boinking, MMS guys, I believe that happened under the "leadership" of Bush's MMS director.

Regulatory reform is all well and good, but republicans take that to mean regulators don't have to do their jobs and in fact, republicans have clearly shown that they like it when regulators let industries "regulate" themselves.

Posted by: srw3 | July 16, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Anybody going to propose alternative reasons why businesses aren't hiring yet? Democrats? How about it, guys and gals? It ain't hard:

1.) Jobs, as has been said since Day One, are a lagging indicator of economic growth.

2.) Businesses cut back and economized during the worst of this recession, and by going so they learned how to do MORE with LESS, so they are keeping their efficiently profitable operations rather than expanding them.

3.) Have you ever heard a businessman say, "I am not going to earn more profit because it's going to be taxed more. I'll just accept my current profit level."

4.) Boehner claims businesses aren't expanding because they "don’t know what the new rules will be." So, in spite of changing conditions, there should be no new regulations? Obviously, the safety of miners and oil platform workers, as well the financial security of folks who could lose or did their retirement funds and even their homes, are not as important as the profitability of businesses.

What is behind the Republican strategy? How do they want the electorate to react to it?

What they want people to do is this: "DON'T THINK. JUST FEAR AND REACT!"

Posted by: pasc1 | July 16, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh, No!

Not Boehner again! Didn't he say something just a few weeks ago which he said he did not mean? Oh yeah, I remember, it was killing the Wall Street ant with the Financial Reform Nuclear Weapon! And Obama Shaking BP the Mafia-style.

We got to have a quota system on how many crows can one eat in one month. There are others trying to compete with him.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 16, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I think having a moratorium on new Republicans is a great idea it sends a wonderful signal to the American People that they're going to have some breathing room.

Sounds much better this way

Posted by: notthatdum | July 16, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

More Boehner Vaporware v10.10.

We should not pass legislation for a year so business can catch its breath.

HOW?

Well get back to you.

Ever swince he got to be minority leader he and his party have been great at announcing new programs and better ways to do things that the Democrats get done. Asked how, he says, just waiut, but it really exists.

Everything he ever new he learned from Adam Osborne.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 16, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

When are we going to get rid of Congressman Boner? The man has never had a good idea. He is useless.

Posted by: sameolddoc | July 16, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company