Obama Orders Review of All Government Regulations

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

President Obama today is signing an executive order to start a government-wide review of federal regulations, in yet another overture to a business community that has been tepid in its support of the administration.

The president announced the regulatory overhaul in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he argues his administration has always strived to strike the right balance between enforcing commonsense regulations and allowing the free market to run efficiently. He acknowledged that some regulations are "placing unreasonable burdens on business" but also noted that a lack of regulation in the financial markets "nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression."

The regulatory review will seek to eliminate rules that stifle job creation, are redundant, or are just "plain dumb," the president wrote. He gave the example of the recently-eliminated EPA rule that designated saccharin -- an artificial sweetener commonly added to coffee, considered safe by the FDA -- as a hazardous waste.

The review will also seek to add regulations that cover "obvious gaps," the president said, such as procedures to stop preventable infections in hospitals.

"We are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends--giving careful consideration to benefits and costs," Mr. Obama wrote. "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. And it means making sure the government does more of its work online, just like companies are doing."

The executive order also directs federal agencies to do more to account for and reduce the burdens regulations may place on small businesses.

"Despite a lot of heated rhetoric, our efforts over the past two years to modernize our regulations have led to smarter--and in some cases tougher--rules to protect our health, safety and environment," Mr. Obama wrote. "Yet according to current estimates of their economic impact, the benefits of these regulations exceed their costs by billions of dollars. This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game."

Mr. Obama's executive order, as well as the corresponding Wall Street Journal op-ed, give another indicator that the president is seeking to repair his relationship with the business community, which has been at times hostile to his administration, especially in the wake of health care reform.

The president will be speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce next month, and he recently named William Daley, a bank executive with a solid reputation in the business community, to be his chief of staff.

Regardless of whether the president had signed this executive order, government regulations were expected to come under new scrutiny this year in the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, under the leadership of

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). Today Issa praised the president's call for a government-wide regulatory review.

"I applaud President Obama for joining what must be an effort that stretches beyond ideological entrenchments to identify the regulatory impediments that have prevented real and sustained job growth in the private sector," Issa said in a statement. "The anti-business policies of the past have hurt job creators, small and large. It's in the interest of every American that we create a modern, regulatory environment that fosters economic growth and makes U.S. companies globally competitive. I look forward to providing the President with insights gained from our current effort to hear directly from job creators about what they perceive as barriers standing in the way of their ability to create jobs."

Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue released his own statement calling the president's executive order a "positive first step."

Analysis from CBS MoneyWatch.com

[David_Chowes]

Smart move by Obama. Especially if he's planing to run in 2012. One needs to be pragmatic when one is a politician -- especially president. And, what's wrong with reviewing government regulations?

[jambo223]

Actually, the way to increase jobs is to get rid of the minimum wage, all entitlements like Medicare and Social Security,all financial and environmental regulations. We would be able to compete with China then on an equal footing. Manufacturers could pay $0.18/Hour, pay no benefits and build anything anywhere without being bothered by those job-killing regulators. Corporations would not have to ship jobs overseas because they could pay the wages that they want here. While we are at it let's get rid of the unions and the child labor laws. The US economy would boom and the 1% of the population that has 98% of the money would be very, very happy. The other 99% would be employed. So, it is a win win situation.

[Userreview]

You, my friend have just articulated the agenda of the supranational global plutocracy that increasingly runs the world: think WEF, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group. I hypothesize that in the next 15 years they will strip away the crowning achievements of the New Deal once and for all.

1. Progressive taxation scheme (Oh wait, they've already done that. I HIGHLY recommend looking at a table of the marginal income tax rates over the 20th century: highest and most broadly-based economic growth coincides with most Progressive tax regime).
2. The Social Security Act of 1935 (Think 3 Republican votes to Privatize and the 'concession' of Obama - the Republican in Chief - to slash Payroll tax in half for 2 years. Contrary to pop. opinion, were the cutoff on taxation not to stop arbitrarily at $100K, the fund would be completely solvent).
3. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (this is the crown jewel of the Multinational Elite - they have their eyes on the prize. It includes the big 3 of the middle class: A) Min. Wage B) Hour limits - via overtime pay B) Age Limits for many kinds of work). Along with this, expect them to sack the employment protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, OSHA of 1970, and the ADA of 1990.
4. To top it all off, the Multinationalists will make sure we can't fight back, by stripping the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 - esp. Title VII - of all its powers (it has already been greatly enervated since its original passage) - and then canning it altogether, making concerted activity to form a union more or less completely unprotected, if not downright illegal, as it was in many states until the NLRA was passed.

To prevent riots and protests that could threaten their dominance, the all-powerful Multinationalists are in the process of erecting an iron-clad surveillance society that will eventually be converted into a full-scale police state - Just like China today! - to quash anyone who dares to challenge the status quo by trying to form a union, go on strike, petition for government reform, etc., etc. This is their vision - it may be nigh impossible to stop it.

[discussthis]

Ten to one odds obamao will find a need for more stringent regulations after this review. Can't let a good crisis go to waste.

[tsigili]

You have to do more than "review", if you want something to change.

[crazyname]

I am sure this will not be good for the taxpaying american people, but I guess he has to have something for all the government staff of lawyers he has sitting on their hands. I guarantee it is a cash hunt, how can they get more money out of everybody. Obama does nothing without a liberal slant to it. You have to read inbetween the lines. When he comes up with his remarks of workng together or doing what is right, conservatives believe he is coming around, when in fact, his unspecific jargon is anti republican and anti conservative and pro more liberal adjendas. He is a good stretcher of the truth, a manipulator of the facts and the word, or at least his speach writers are! Tell them what they want to hear and do what you always intended to do anyway! The white house model!

[jimbom121]

Your name fits you correctly.

[RealiteBites]

Well that was the platform Pres. Obama adopted during his campaign as a foil to McCain's platform of deregulation - that he wanted to analyze the situation to get rid of the overregulation and keep the good, not just slash everything in sight.

When he talked about this stuff during the campaign though, I just assumed he came up with those ideas himself. The way he's elaborated on his platform now though, I'm not so sure ... something just always feels 'off', like this is double-talk rather than a substantive analysis like Bill Clinton's 'triangulation'. Like he's trying to be all things to all people, rather than having formulated a plan based on making the world a better place?

Probably some good'll come out of this, but I don't get the sense that it's the best possible plan of action that could have been put together ... just a gut feeling, like something feels 'off' ... jmo though ...

[RealiteBites]

I don't know what it is ... I think it's the ping-pong approach, like he's debating himself - he says that regulations are burdensome, but regulations prevent depressions. Regulations stifle job creation, but he wants to add to it to plug gaps. Regulations are burdensome, but regulations protect health and safety.

I think he should have made clear that his goal is system optimization, and that he suspects that the system is inefficient. Because it's not that Republicans think the idea that regulations are bad is an absolute - isn't it moreso that they've made the assumption that the current system is overregulated and therefore inefficient and therefore burdensome? I mean like they say that the only justification for Government is defense, but if you say you want to cut back on food inspection, they'd be complaining to high heaven.

Also, I think the feeling that government is inefficient is pretty widely held, like even the left feel that way as well. Like don't people sort of feel like Washington probably starts off with the best of intentions, but that their solution is always to slap on another new regulatory framework rather than go back and revisit the old?

So Pres. Obama could claim that his way of doing things is new. Instead now it's being packaged as more evidence of him trying to move to the center to appeal to business. Something just feels different from the way Bill Clinton did things - I think Bill Clinton was more aware of peoples' shared dreams and didn't always see things as two 'polarized' sides that need to be appeased like I suspect Pres. Obama does? I don't know ... jmo ...

[samael2014]

Just remember, you miserable steaming heap and rule of law and due process violating waste of an election...

Congress makes the laws -- the executive branch upholds and protects them -- all of them, including DUE PROCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION -- ALL THE TIME.

I know... I know. We live in a tyranny, not a democracy, a tyranny that says all that and then violates due process and equal protection in your face without acknowledging it. Which is why human garbage that repeats itself like Obama taking office after Bush, expects to get re-elected, while House Democrats do not.

I remember Obama promising all sorts of reform and rigor with application of acquistion laws in government -- SO MUCH FRAUD, GROSS MISMANAGEMNT, NEGLIGENCE, WASTE AND CORRUPTION HERE YOU CAN SMELL THE STENCH OF IT IN THE AIR.

And you can't even get Obama to respond to investigations done by what meager investigative journalism we have in America anymore(eg. The Washington Post's three day report entitled "Top Secret America" a Washington Post Investigation), which reported MASSIVE and highly-uncritical spending and waste in defense and intelligence since Bush has took office and continues unabated even now -- most of this due to sole source contracting with companies that establish OBESE CASH COWS within the government. It's literally a racket in the DoD and intelligence agencies -- it's insane what this nation could do with the money they reap.

And here's Obama talking about "reducing the burdens on the private sector"?! Not a word here on the MASSIVE waste of taxpayer dollars under acquisition schemes that violate RULE OF LAW.

When he's says regulation -- RULE OF LAW says that should uphold and protect the RULE OF LAW. So exactly what are you talking about when our taxpayer dollars are funding spending in the DoD and intelligence agencies that ARE CRIMINAL to say the least. VERY MASSIVELY CRIMINAL.