Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System

[jaxx]

by Barack Obama
JANUARY 18, 2011

For two centuries, America's free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. That vibrant entrepreneurialism is the key to our continued global leadership and the success of our people.

But throughout our history, one of the reasons the free market has worked is that we have sought the proper balance. We have preserved freedom of commerce while applying those rules and regulations necessary to protect the public against threats to our health and safety and to safeguard people and businesses from abuse.

From child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to our most recent strictures against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, we have, from time to time, embraced common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.

Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.

cont'd http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...on_LEADTop

[NJMaverick]

I read the article and I think the President is on solid ground here. Too many regulations are either poorly written or were an over reaction to some event. A review that eliminates needless regulation and streamlines and improves others, will go a long way toward convincing the public that regulation is a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs (the usual cry from the right)

[jaxx]

I agree with you, the President is right to look at the regulations. However the far left is seeing this as moving to the center, compromising and the corporate hack bit. I think they are more resistant to change than the conservs. JMO

[NJMaverick]

(01-18-2011 10:37 AM)Sass Wrote:  I agree with you, the President is right to look at the regulations. However the far left is seeing this as moving to the center, compromising and the corporate hack bit. I think they are more resistant to change than the conservs. JMO

The far left needs to be less knee jerk in their reactions. While regulations accomplish many great things, they are not without a downside. A periodic or continual effort to reduce the downside of regulations is simply a smart thing to do.

[Willinois]

(01-18-2011 10:58 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The far left needs to be less knee jerk in their reactions. While regulations accomplish many great things, they are not without a downside. A periodic or continual effort to reduce the downside of regulations is simply a smart thing to do.

Calling this editorial a move to the right, as several bloggers have done, suggests that the left position is to believe there are no bad regulations which need to be reviewed. Believing in a supremely wise, omnipotent government may be the view of authoritarian Marxists but I wouldn't call it a progressive value.

[Willinois]

Obama has a history of pitching progressive proposals in terms that appeal to moderates and conservatives. I wonder how much of this effort will cut regulation compared to creating new ones. Is reducing bureaucratic paperwork for small businesses the spoonful of sugar to go with the medicine of newer and stronger regulation he mentions?

Of course, the usual bloggers will latch on to any vaguely conservative sounding statement in this while ignoring the call for new regulation. Blaming the recession on lack of government oversight is a strongly progressive argument for a President to make, which I expect will be ignored by much of the progressive netroots.

[CTLawGuy]

I made the mistake of turning on Olbermann and got the "Obama sells out liberalism!!!!" teaser about this op-ed. Then I turned it off again.

The article is eminently reasonable and sensible. In no way is it an acceptance of conservative philosophy. It is a philosophy that regulations should make sense, should be as cost effective as possible, and be effective. No liberal being honest with him- or herself should disagree with this.

on edit: after reading the article, I chuckled at "Mr. Obama is president of the United States." Duh.

[NJMaverick]

The reactionary liberals remind me of the hard core NRA members that believe any gun regulations, no matter how sensible, is bad and evil. The idea that regulations can be a burden is not an incorrect one. It makes sense that compassionate progressives would want to make it easier on people and businesses.

[CTLawGuy]

(01-19-2011 07:50 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The reactionary liberals remind me of the hard core NRA members that believe any gun regulations, no matter how sensible, is bad and evil. The idea that regulations can be a burden is not an incorrect one. It makes sense that compassionate progressives would want to make it easier on people and businesses.

Yup, and also, having regulations that make no sense only aids the conservatives' argument that regulation is inherently bad.

[RoyGBiv]

(01-19-2011 05:29 PM)CTLawGuy Wrote:  

(01-19-2011 07:50 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The reactionary liberals remind me of the hard core NRA members that believe any gun regulations, no matter how sensible, is bad and evil. The idea that regulations can be a burden is not an incorrect one. It makes sense that compassionate progressives would want to make it easier on people and businesses.

Yup, and also, having regulations that make no sense only aids the conservatives' argument that regulation is inherently bad.

It's the same MO they use in promoting the idea that government programs in general are bad. They pick a program that has flaws, fail to fix the flaws and, if at all possible, make them worse through de-funding or de-regulating, then yell about how bad it is as they seek to shut it down.

[Julie]

Ah yes, sense and sensibility. Not just a title for a Jane Austin book. Works well for Presidents too.

Julie

[OptimistesMaddie]

The golden lining is that if they get rid of the terribly written uneforceable regulations . They can actually bring in a leaner regulatory system and with more resources. Those resources will be able to focus on the hard hitting regulations versus being spread too thin. The Repugs are going to be a bit surprised.