Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Obama Loves Me, Obama Loves Me Not, Obama Loves Me

Here's an op-ed from our president that played with my political emotions:
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.
Well said. And then then he goes and says this:
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.
And then makes up for it:
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.
And now some clarification:
Over the past two years, the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance. And today, I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government.

This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.
Then he gets a little distracted:
Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps: new safety rules for infant formula; procedures to stop preventable infections in hospitals; efforts to target chronic violators of workplace safety laws.
And finally he wins me over:
But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.

For instance, the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month.

But creating a 21st-century regulatory system is about more than which rules to add and which rules to subtract. As the executive order I am signing makes clear, we are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends—giving careful consideration to benefits and costs. This means writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens. It means using disclosure as a tool to inform consumers of their choices, rather than restricting those choices.
Then Obama takes it home:
This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary. But what is clear is that we can strike the right balance. We can make our economy stronger and more competitive, while meeting our fundamental responsibilities to one another.

2 comments:

  1. I had to read this twice because I didn't believe you could be won over by a progressive Dem on government regulations. I did read that right... right?

    On a somewhat separate note, I love that at the bottom of the WSJ OpEd it explains, "Mr. Obama is president of the United States". ha. Thanks for the clarification WSJ.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You read it right.

    Over the last 2 years I've been convinced that I slightly prefer Republican rhetoric when they run for office, but slightly prefer Democratic rhetoric after they are elected.

    Now if I can just find an influential party where I agree with their actions.

    Oh, and he's the president too. Thanks WSJ. Here's a question, how does the president get this published? And has there ever been a time a sitting president has been rejected?

    ReplyDelete

You are the reason why I do not write privately. I would love to hear your thoughts, whether you agree or not.