Study Confirms Cutting Federal Regulations Lowers Unemployment

April 12, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

Many prominent economists hold to the view that government regulation is a form of taxation. Except that, rather than take money out of the economy to perform some function, regulations require the expenditure of private money to achieve some arguably public good.

In that sense, then, unlike taxes, the cost of regulation to the individual and to the economy as a whole is largely hidden from view. People disagree on regulations' effects and whether they promote or retard productive economic activity. One thing is for sure, though: The hidden cost helps protect the political class from their consequences. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons about the budget and the deficit.]

The effort to accurately assess regulatory costs will take a giant step forward Wednesday when the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy Studies releases a new study that uses 50 years of data and modern econometric methods to quantify the relationship between government spending on regulatory activity and economic growth and  job recovery.

In Regulatory Expenditures, Economic Growth and Jobs: An Empirical Study, the center finds that reducing the size of the federal regulatory budget by even modest amounts will have significant positive effects on both GDP and private sector growth.

“In particular,” the group says, “even a small 5 percent reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) would result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually.”

“On average,” the Phoenix Center says, “eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs.” [Check out cartoons on the economy.]

“Our statistical analysis of historical data indicates that federal expenditures on regulatory activity have a significant impact on the size of the private-sector economy and private-sector employment,” says Dr. George S. Ford, chief economist of the Phoenix Center. “While the entire federal budget must be cut to address the deficit problem, the evidence indicates that reductions in the overall federal regulatory budget may substantially impact the growth of economic output and employment.”

The study is likely to be a bombshell. The recently concluded agreement on spending for Fiscal Year 2011 and the federal budget for 2012 proposed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan take on the issue of spending in a way that has many in the political class up in arms. The Phoenix Center study will only add much-needed fuel to the fire, which is already blazing.

Tags:
financial regulation,
economy,
Paul Ryan,
deficit and national debt,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"the trick to regulation,s is to strike right balance,between stiffiling economic growth and protecting the country from corporate predators.this in many cases is easier said than done."

This is confused thinking. You are operating under the belief that the "corporate predators" are not the ones actually writing these regulations. This is completely historically inaccurate. Every piece of major regulatory legislation is written either directly by their representatives, or by firms who work for them indirectly.

They have much to gain by doing so. It allows them to essentially stifle business models which operate in a manner different to theirs. Why do you think GE is so very interested in pushing various green technology standards? Because it has a lot invested in these technologies, and wants to both stifle competitors and increase its take of taxpayer subsidies.

Gabriel Kolko covered this topic decades ago, and Hunter Lewis did so again quite recently.

Slim934 of SC 8:30AM April 13, 2011

the trick to regulation,s is to strike right balance,between stiffiling economic growth and protecting the country from corporate predators.this in many cases is easier said than done.

bruce b of NV 11:25PM April 12, 2011

Bill Clinton empowering Carter's Community Reinvestment Act that socked it to us.

"Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws."

"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains… Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected."

"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."

_____

Bush tries to stop the madness

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

_____

Democrats said NO PROBLEM

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

"Bush was the first to recommend regulating the GSEs in April, 2001. In 2003, Bush tried to create a new federal agency to regulate the GSEs. He was blocked from doing so by the Democrats in the Senate, especially by Barney Frank. In 2005, Alan Greenspan warned that failing to regulate the GSEs could be a catastrophe. Again, Democrats blocked the effort to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/democrats-caused-the-recession-and-republicans-tried-to-stop-it/

_____

Lawyer obama threatening racist lawsuits if more loans was not given to iffy home loans.

"Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans – UPDATED"

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

_____

Reduce bad regulations absolutely. Stop barry from waving good regulations for buddy BP, that caused Gulf oil leak...

Bill Hedges of MO 9:06PM April 12, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement