Once again reality clashes with right wing claims about Obama and Democrats. While the right wing claims Obama is a socialist who has increased their taxes and increased the deficit, the reality is that Obama is protecting capitalism against the anti-capitalism, pro-oligarchy policies of the Republicans, Obama has cut taxes, and the bulk of the deficit was caused by the policies of George Bush with the consent of Republicans. It has been ignorant and irresponsible actions by the uninformed sheep who make up the Tea Party movement which have undermined our economy, causing a downgrading in our credit rating. Today Bloomberg shot down another myth spread by the right that Obama is responsible for a huge expansion in government regulations:
Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News.
The average annual cost to businesses under Obama is higher than under his predecessors, the Bloomberg review shows. The increase is estimated to total as little as $100 million or as much as $4.1 billion, or at most three one-hundredths of a percent of the total economy…
Republicans say that the number of high-cost regulations are up, damaging an already weak economy, and more rules are on the way. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report on Sept. 14 alleging a “tsunami” of new federal rules.
“I don’t think there is a measure by which there has been a regulatory tsunami,” Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House, said in an interview Oct. 19. “The costs are not out of line by historical standards.”
Those numbers, which do not include independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, encompass the expense of new regulations, and do not take into account the economic benefits of healthier children, safer roads or fewer industrial accidents, which Sunstein argues can dwarf the initial costs.
Considering the problems created by relaxing of regulations in many areas under Bush, we might have expected a far greater number of regulations under Obama compared to Bush. The data in the full report showing how minimal the cost of Obama’s regulations have been debunk any claims that government regulations under Obama are in any way responsible for the poor performance of the economy and the persistence of the Bush Recession.