How Do We Balance Regulations and Manufacturing?

You have identified the real "inconvenient truth". I'd give you a GA, but the page does not allow me.

In order to create an effective balance, the actual net effect of a regulation to protect and yet not to disproportionately suppress manufacturing must be known. Most of us in industry have no confidence in our overreaching, social engineering, bloated government bureaucracies to discern that proper balance. They do not listen to us and do not have the political will to truly support businesses growth.

You don't want safe food, labor laws, interstate/international commerce,?

The use of the term Czar predates the current administration. The use of unelected administrators is certainly not exclusive to our particular form of government...

anything that would sort out the mismash of overlapping rules, regulations & laws would be welcome

not that anything like that is what will actually happen

Wow, thanks for the link!

The Bush and Obama administrations certainly are both guilty as hell with the appointments of new czars. These people have little, if any accountability. We don't really know who they are, who's pulling their strings, etc., etc., and they are able to make decisions that will affect every US business and potentially, every individual. In my book, that is foolish, reckless and extremely dangerous.

In the past ten years the appointment of new czars has been unprecedented, and it's accelerating under Obama's watch. Gee, if we were to look at a graph depicting new czars as compared to the overall US economy over the last ten years, wouldn't that be telling. Growth in government trending upwards, while the economy goes exactly in the opposite direction. Interesting.

You don't want safe food, labor laws, interstate/international commerce,?

Where did that come from? I didn't say it.

anything that would sort out the mismash of overlapping rules, regulations & laws would be welcome

Are you suggesting more are going to help?

Given the track record of the current administration, streamlining things for US business is the last thing on their minds. The fact that they vehemently lashed out at the US Chamber of Commerce, pretty much cemented, in my mind, where they stand.

When Obama says he's going to help, through the EPA, streamline things for US business, as far as I'm concerned, he's actually saying that he's going to help streamline them into a, "greener", way of thinking, regardless of whether they like it or not, regardless of the cost, and regardless of whether the technology even exists to make it happen. His actions have proven this to be true.

Based on our previous conversations, I think we agree on a lot of things. But in regard to how to get there, we are polar opposites.

You, like Obama, believe that positive change will come about by broadening the scope and power of the federal government. I on the other hand, believe it will come by shrinking, (not eliminating), the scope and power of the federal government, and ceding power to the states. Another big difference between us, although we do tend to agree on a lot of things, is the fact that I still believe the Constitution to be a viable document.

You said we all want clean air & water

I listed some other things that are needed for effective manufacturing

you keep making the point that the current administration is somehow worse than the preceding...

The creation & appointment of Czars looks like a way to appear to be taking action & getting to hand out political favors at the same time

are there any political appointees that have much accountability?

Just another slight of hand trick to divert attention

the old add another layer of oversight trick

we need to systematically rebuild the infrastructure of our government

How would engineers tackle the problem?

Bad engineers would over-engineer it to death, which is what we are witnessing now.

Good engineers would strip it down to it's necessary components, and get it to the point where it was operating at maximum efficiency, with the least parts and waste, which is what needs to happen.

There are plenty of things about the previous administration that I didn't like. Now with your list of appointed czars, and who appointed them, I've got another one.

What is the solution?

not the usual government bad, business good, back to the constitution talking points...

real tangible solutions that will bring about positive incremental changes

The solutions (I believe) have been presented herein (this thread), stated by you and kramarat:

"shrinking, (not eliminating), the scope and power of the federal government, and ceding power to the states"

"strip it down to it's necessary components, and get it to the point where it was operating at maximum efficiency"

"sort out the mismash of overlapping rules, regulations & laws"

If our legislators spent as much time on this as getting themselves elected and building their power & reach, the solutions would be predictable and beneficial.

Those are big broad strokes

John has given a pretty good explanation of where we are & how we got here

We need to have more relevant participation by the voters

at the moment we keep getting asked questions that are the equivalent of:

When did you stop beating your wife

there is no good answer

when presented with 2 candidates both of whom represent special interests other than the citizen, it's no wonder the percentage of citizens who vote is so low

More later

I agree, but if the solutions were easy they would be done by now. We need to stop "the things that got us here" and keep working on the problems with solutions that provide for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Stop forcing solutions that try to impossibly guarantee everyone the "entitlements of happiness" (home, food, job, health, etc.).

There are no easy answers, we just have to honestly explain that we did not beat our wife (except just trying to deceive when we actually did!).

Again you are right - it will be difficult to reawaken those so discouraged that they feel that participation and voting are futile. How about an industrial & economic crash that sets us back a century!

I thought we just had that or aren't we still having some of that?

It's a recession when you lose your job. It's a depression when I lose my job too.

Not really - we just had a housing & economic crash. Homes were devalued (right valued?) and should eventually recover (they did not disappear) unless the cost of our debt prevents it. When our industries crash, the permanent loss of businesses and jobs (started decades ago) will disappear and never return. Kind of a permanent depression.

I would tend to agree with you about ignoring 'the things that got us here', except for the fact that a solid understanding of the root causes of a problem are critical to finding the solution. This is how a quality system works. In the absence of that understanding we will be susceptible to the blowhards and politicians offering up the same bad medicine in a new package. I don't see any sign that the American people have come to grips with how we got into this mess.

For example, there are outdated and ineffective regulations out there, and there is a very vocal group claiming over-regulation is killing our businesses. But I don't think it is reasonable to single this out as the cause of our economic woes, or even a major contributor. The real problem is that we are pricing ourselves out of the global market. A Chinese or Indian engineer costs around $8,000.00 per year. In the US the cost is roughly ten times that. A Chinese or Indian factory worker costs pennies on the dollar compared to a US worker. That's why we're in the toilet. We should obviously look at every regulation to see if we really need it, need to modify it or eliminate it. If we do it well we will save some money, but it won't be the thing that saves our bacon. If we do it badly we'll be royally screwed. Remember California deregulated it's electric utilities about eight years ago, and the very businesses who had been pushing the deregulation thanked them by looting the state's economy, and badly damaging the honest businesses with the rolling blackouts. Deregulating the financial industry as per their request cost us maybe ten trillion dollars, stuffed astronomical sums into a few already deep pockets (to use for buying more politicians) and that story isn't over yet.

100% agree without the true cause (just guessing solutions), corrective actions are usually ineffective or worse even damaging to the desired quality. The first and biggest hurdle is obtaining the true, unbiased cause(s). As long as our legislators are more concerned with their re-election and the special interest groups to achieve that end, the work of "the people" will suffer. Our polarizing liberal and conservative ideologies may never allow agreement of the true cause(s). You would think a near sinking would prompt everyone to get on the same boat. Defending ideologies unfortunately is trumping the implementation of effective solutions.

You cite great examples. To expect an short sighted government to step in and impose regulations that upset the balance of supply & demand, then the same government to effectively deregulate seems foolish. As with other examples, you probably would have been better off if they could have just let market demand prevail in the first place. Government regulated monopolies are almost always troublesome. Market choice is the only preventive action. There is just no political will to support it.

Oh I forgot:

"we need to systematically rebuild the infrastructure of our government"

Note 2 of the 4 solutions are proposed by you. Not an easy task & the "we" is not the government fixing itself, it is us participating and fixing our government at the voting booth.

Hi Marat,

I agree with you that the elected government, in any country must be take care about collecting taxes, and distribute to army for protection of freedom, healthcare of people because they pay taxes, pay a reasonable pension to every taxpayers, and help international commerce and other important relationships.

Food will be save to eat when certain food-producers get out of business because they have no more customers. We, food eaters don't buy when is judged unproper for humans.

Again, as you mentioned, government cannot change little to nothing without lies and/or oppression. We, the other hand, can elect another with different or the same ideas. This is our duty and we have to do during the next elections.

I want elimination of designated people to create MANUFACTURING REGULATIONS. It will not serve people, just a few, Gil.

Hi Garth,

You ask for polite words, there are some. EPA let pharmaceuticals to kill people and you want that this organization regulate manufacturing? Really, are you read the number of dead persons because "medications"? Today, every doctor tell us that small level of radiations create "cancers" but they recommand for testing other human problems. So, the samething PREVENT, TREAT, and CURE from illnes, sickness, and disease, and the other hand this same can make you ILL, SICK, and finally DEAD. It will healing one side and make you dead in the other side. It's a beautiful system!

When I read on food labels in first or second position SUGAR, CORN SYRUP, SALT, I have a question if that labelled food is for humans? We are already fat and obese why they, EPA people encourage us to be fatter and more obese. Sorry, I forget the other side of the story: Doctors need customers and pharmaceuticals need buyers for pills.

Unelected is fine but designed, chosen, and educated people to perform a certain way for the particular job, creation of regulations, NO thanks! It will profit for certain, and paid heavily by others.

In Alberta, Canada, the Harper and Conservative government support heavily an ecological disaster by polluting water in lakes and rivers that Canadians will pay for cleaning at very high costs within years.

Every industry has some watchdog and regulators. Let them do it, Gil.

if the industries had watch dogs & regulators there would be no epa or fda

FDA may be allow some drugs & devices of questionable value

what would happen if big Pharma were completely unrestrained?

More to the point would be why does the EPA and their minions, the NJDEP, NYDEP and others, think that shutting down USA industries that run at 85% to 95% clean is good for the Environment when their replacement will be factories operating in Third World countries that have No regulations and will spew 85 to 95% pollutants into the atmosphere. The Earth is round fellows, what goes up into the atmosphere comes around sooner or later to all of the world or stays up there adding to the Ozone blanket.

Hi K,

You predict the future of the American manufacturing. How a bunch of bureaucrates (bean counters and unsuccessful technical people turned to politics) can redirect the laws and regulations in manufacturing? We don't use statistics very often. So, how we can create rules about what we don't know or know very little? Look around regulatory people working for the governments. They cannot establish an acceptable rules for VOC (Volatile organic compound) in coatings because we are allowed to sell solvent containing products as varnishes, stains, and paints... They are not technical people or get out as past technical individuals without success with lack of specific knowledge. Also, they are financed by certain big companies and they, the EPA will work for their interests. The best was the electric car!

I agree we need rules and regulations but we have to understand what is available and possible to do, and for that we need knowledge.

Yes, all these rule and regulation creators will originate "SUFFOCATED MANUFACTURING" in North-America, and I say, the remaining and legislated future manufacturing if we are able to operate in those new and established conditions, Gil.

The US government (like every other) has laws and regulations that build up over time. The processes by which these laws and regulations are adopted is chaotic – often new laws and regs are rapidly adopted in response to a calamity: 911, Wall Street collapse, environmental disasters, horrific industrial accidents, etc. Sometimes liberals happen to be in power and have the greater influence, sometimes it is the conservatives. Sometimes the regulations go too far, sometimes not far enough, sometimes they miss the point. This is a Goldilocks world that we live in, entirely populated with fallible mortals. It cannot be otherwise because it is our nature.

All these laws and regulations are our national Quality System, and they are just as critical to the operation of our nation as the Quality Systems adopted by most competent businesses. The difference is that a business quality system is under constant review with an eye to improving the system, by teams of people who serve at the pleasure of company management, there is a clearly defined and widely accepted goal (more profits through less waste and higher quality), and the results are monitored and measured constantly. In government the review is haphazard at best, the folks doing the review are either elected officials with political agendas that may or may not be in the broad national interest, or civil servants who don't serve at the pleasure of the current management, and any measurements tend to be politicized.

Kramrat mentions the numerous 'tsars' that all modern presidents seem to appoint. The term tsars was coined by journalists, who chose the word carefully because it carries so much emotional baggage – it's foreign sounding and reeks of injustice and Kremlin despotism. In fact presidents of both parties have found it a necessary technique to govern through a maze of overlapping, largely unaccountable, and redundant agencies that have grown up haphazardly over the years.

U NO WHO asserts that 'They (government agencies) do not listen to us and do not have the political will to truly support businesses growth'. While it may be true that 'most of us in industry have no confidence', the government does in fact listen very closely to some businesses, such as big banks, insurance companies, energy companies, etc.. The voices of small and medium sized businesses tend to get drowned out. As long as honest and productive business people continue to side with these non-productive rent-seekers, and join in their wagon circles, a sensible solution will be elusive. In Goldilocks World some industries are over-regulated, some are about right, and some are under-regulated. IMHO most of the push for de-regulation seems to come from the deep pockets of those business sectors that are currently under-regulated, the elected politicians they support, and their former (and perhaps future) employees who are currently installed at the regulatory agencies.

Most modern presidents have made promises about 'streamlining' government, eliminating waste and duplication, and pruning out unnecessary or outdated regulations. President Obama just made this same promise in his SOTU. Time will tell, but at this point his batting average is pretty good. This is a monstrous task, and there are many powerful entrenched interests who benefit from the current dysfunctional structure. And there are others who would support such a reorganization and rationalization of government, but who will prefer to oppose it tactically to deny credit to their political opponents.

I agree with all you have said except:

"at this point his batting average is pretty good" ........ for promises?

Yes for keeping promises. The list is pretty long. We may disagree about the wisdom of the ideas, or the professionalism of their implementation. But at this point I'd say if you want to know what he's going do, listen to what he says. Right now he's saying he plans to reorganize the federal agencies and departments to eliminate the overlapping responsibilities. He's saying that he will be meeting with business leaders to discuss eliminating harmful and pointless regulations. I expect that's what he'll do. He may or may not succeed depending on how Congress reacts, and the results will almost certainly please some people, infuriate others, and be completely ignored by most.

"listen to what he says" For the most part you may be right on this. I guess most did not understand what was needed to keep those noble promises. Just have to ignore the closing Gitmo, and transparency and transforming Washington and bringing everyone together "stuff".

You make some good points john. It's the typical chicken and egg conundrum.

During the industrial revolution greedy corporations were using American workers as slave labor practically. The rich were getting richer, the workers were being paid squat and working in dangerous situations. It wasn't right.

Along came unions, government regulation, minimum wage, etc., (It was needed). We enjoyed a period in our history in which things were in relative balance. Big business was still making plenty of money and workers were making a decent wage, in a safe environment, we were exporting our goods all over the world.........everyone was happy.

Over time, both union demands and government regulation started to become cumbersome, the big companies went along, mostly because it still made sense. After all, the factories and skilled workers were already here, and a decent profit could still be had.

This trend continued until it became worthwhile for big companies to start looking at the labor pools in other countries. They quickly realized that people in other countries not only, weren't stupid, but were willing to work for far less money. As an added bonus, foreign governments had little or no regulation in place. Pay them some money and carry on. This was the beginning of the shift.

Now we are in a period, after we have trained skilled workers around the world, in which they have realized that they don't need the US companies. They can start their own companies, sell on the world market, and keep the profits for themselves........I don't blame them.

Coupled with this, we've got corruption within government, corruption within unions and corruption within business. We are becoming masters of our own destruction.

The only way I see out of this situation for the US, as unpleasant as it sounds, is to reduce over regulation, reduce the power of the unions, impose big fines on companies that don't comply with the regulations that we need.................and the most unpleasant aspect of all...........is that all of us, individuals and government alike, are going to have to get used to living on far less money than what we've become accustomed to. I see no other way around it.

Again I mostly agree, but you leave a few things out. I spend far more on life insurance, health insurance and finance charges than I do in taxes. I think we should include banks and insurance companies in the list of evil doers. Yes housing prices have come down, and for people looking to buy a first home or rent that's a good thing. But for those who bought an overpriced home during the boom and are now underwater, or who were planning on that equity to retire, or to finance a new startup business the picture is pretty bleak. Banks are rolling in money (much of it our tax money) but they aren't about to lend it here, for the reasons you mentioned.

So I agree that we all will need to tighten our belts. We also need to get serious about education in math, science, economics, and history, not just in our schools, but in our public and personal conversations. The idiocracy that reigns in our news media is a big part of the problem – for every journalist with a solid background in science (Sanjay Gupta comes to mind) there are dozens of Glen Becks, Chris Mathews, etc., who spout ignorance and anti education nonsense. The unions deserve their share of the blame, but the decline of unions (other than in public service) is pretty much taking care of itself - you don't have much leverage when there are ten million people here at home and billions more overseas who want your job. In real terms, wages for working people have been stagnant or falling for decades. But ending the strangle hold of the big banks, insurance companies, and housing industry is still to be done. These folks have no intention of tightening their belts, and keeping them all fat and happy requires a slew of 'private' tax that we can no longer afford.

As you say, there is plenty of blame to go around. Those of us who saw this coming should have yelled louder. Those that didn't should have listened. And now that almost everybody is paying attention the conversation needs to be honest, fair and rational. In the political realm both conservatives and liberals are to blame for our problems. In the institutional arena both government and business are to blame. Singling out one factor from the others just adds fuel the crippling ideological warfare.

President Obama just made this same promise in his SOTU. Time will tell, but at this point his batting average is pretty good

I have got to fervently disagree, and thankfully the majority of people that voted in the last election feel the same way.

Here in NC, guess where a large chunk of stimulus money went....................They plowed up miles and miles of frontage along interstate 40 and planted flowers and shrubs in the middle of nowhere, between where I live and the beach. They also had the audacity to plant big, expensive looking signs, proclaiming, "Funded By The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act". It made me feel sick...........and yes, the highway still has pot holes.

These wasteful, do nothing projects have been implemented across the nation, at huge taxpayer expense, and accomplished exactly nothing. zilch, nada

I can't have any faith in the government to fix anything. Particularly since I don't even think that they understand the depth and gravity of the problems we are facing. Regardless of who is in power in Washington, they have got to stop shoveling out buckets of money that we don't have. The current crew we have in, think all of this will covered by stealing money from the top 2% of earners.......ain't gonna happen. Not even if they took every dime that the rich people had.

I can assure you, the most pressing problems, the ones that must be dealt with immediately, have nothing to do with a lack of electric cars, windmills or high speed rail, and definitely not from a lack of regulations................. nor do we have the money to implement these Utopian pipe dreams any longer.

When Obama took office I think it was pretty well understood that our economy was going off a cliff. We didn't. That's a big plus. We're still teetering on the edge, but we're not airborne. My business is still open, and my clients have survived as well.

It would have been better if there had been a slug of needed infrastructure projects in the pipeline (more worthy that planting flowers), but there weren't because the wealthy and powerful interests that dominate this country (and who saw years before the rest of us that we were pricing ourselves out of the global market) decided to write this country off and stop paying for such luxuries as roads and bridges. So I agree with you that all the stimulus money didn't restore our economy to it's pre-collapse levels. NOTHING will restore us to that level, because it's just not sustainable anymore. Our only option is to stop screwing around with tired ideological arguments and get serious about upgrading our education and skill levels. If we do this well we might still have a future as a developed nation. Otherwise we'll be sharecroppers growing food for China and India, and making fancy baubles for their captains of industry.

As for 'electric cars, windmills, (etc.)' I think you are seriously wrong. Yes these things will be expensive, but if we build these things here the jobs and the money stays here. What we can't afford is to ship $600B per year (forever?) to other countries (many of whom don't care for us at all) for fossil fuels, and more hundreds of billions for cars and cheap Wal Mart junk. I find it hard to understand this current version of 'the American CAN'T DO' spirit. We have to accept that we are being buffeted by historical forces that we can't control. What we can do is take charge of ourselves and our Nation, and change the things that we can. Or we could go on arguing about the ideologies that we imported from Europe. It is our fealty to these outdated schools of thought that prevents us from doing what we in the US do best - find practical solutions to real problems without regard to the labels that fossilized minds attach to them.

We almost went off the cliff because our government tried to make housing an entitlement (everyone should own a home) and allowed poor financial policies and lax underwriting of loans to people who could not afford them. Where were our legislators and regulators? This is why there is little trust in our government providing solutions - they often are the problem (or allow the problem to explode).

Our DOT budgets are staggering and poorly managed. The concept of spending our way out of a recession has never worked because it is not sustainable. The New Deal did not pull us out of the depression - war did. Businesses create sustaining value, not governments who manage poorly.

We have been throwing money at "upgrading" our education system for decades with declining performance to show for it. Nice rhetoric but no results. If we don't gut the NEA and the teachers unions, nothing will ever change.

We ignored the "drill here & now" idea for expensive technologies most of the market does not need or want to support foolish (in timing only) EU/Green ideologies. You are right, we need to do what makes economic sense, not what is politically correct or expedient.

The only way to get education up to speed is to win the war on drugs.

How's that one going? I don't think I've checked in a decade. [sarcasm]

How much money?

I am intrigued by the argument that public spending (on infrastructure) did not 'pull us out of the depression - war did'. This seems like a non-sequitur. Is it that government spending on infrastructure (which lasts for generations) is wasteful, while government spending on armaments (which are quickly consumed) is not? Is it that building dams and highways and bridges doesn't help the economy, but blood leaking into the sand of some faraway beach does? I don't think so. More likely is that spending on infrastructure as a form of stimulus is controversial, while going to war against an aggressor is not. Faced with conservative arguments against such spending (the same arguments that are being offered up now) the public will was divided. The Keynesian argument is complex and counter-intuitive. Then as now powerful interests argued against it, and by ~1937 had gained the upper hand, even within the Roosevelt administration. So it seems to me that the argument that increased government deficit spending don't work is refuted by the facts. If government deficit spending for war ended the depression, then clearly such spending works. The real issue is that it is difficult to maintain popular support for such programs in the face of well financed opposition. If that is the case then the solution is to counter those arguments forcefully, not to give up.

I'm not arguing that Keynesian theory is the tool that will get us out of trouble this time. I'm just making the point that it is sometimes a useful tool, but only if the public doesn't loose faith, and it should not be trashed by half-baked arguments. It was useful two years ago (we didn't go off the cliff), and probably will be again in the future.

I was not trying to defend workfare vs. bloody sands. Just look at the overall picture to gain perspective. When the government spends (as we did) to make work for a short term solution, it takes a portion of the private sector earnings (taxes), creates short term jobs but no future capital return on the "investment". It can never begin to replace the scale of the economic benefits or ROI of the private business sector. The WWII spending pulled us out of the depression, but it was the post war "boom" of the private sector allowed by the low tax, capital gains and confident attitudes that sustained the recovery. This recession will be over the day we (citizens & small businesses) regain confidence and start spending again, not when our government tries to make it happen or just tries to convince us it is over.

So borrowing for the this busywork/infrastructure purpose alone (unless something else cranks up the private sector whose taxes can pay that debt) just pushes off the real recovery in time and creates future debt risk issues (as we have done). That is why the private sector jobs took the jobs hit but the "chosen" union jobs and the state & local government jobs did not (yet - just watch!). Every real dollar spent by our government is one less investment dollar spent in the private sector with no.

Our government (best in the world) almost always spends and manages poorly. (no incentive or oversight to competitively improve for survival) It does not matter whether it is for war or busywork or infrastructure. In my opinion, we just need to scale it back so it can be properly managed and accounted for. Trying to socially engineer and transform for (left and right) extreme ideologies is a waste of our tax dollars and only we the people can put an end to it.

We're having a nice little talk here

There is more common ground than not

We are still one of the biggest consumer markets in the world & we are encouraging [through the tax & regulation structure] the profits to be outsourced to shell corporations in order to avoid paying for government & infrastructure.

In china to sell consumer goods you must have a company with some chinese ownership & pay taxes just like the locals do!

As guest says we need fair trade.

Electric cars and windmills are not expensive. Expensive is when something costs a lot more than something similar, but you have the money to pay for it.

Electric cars and windmills are cost-prohibitive. Nobody would buy an electric car without government rebates. Nobody would invest in wind power with government rebates.

Sure we can build these things here and the money stays here, but the taxpayer is saddled with the cost. We can't pay for it, so our children and grandchildren will have to.

As far as sending our money to other countries for fossil fuels, we don't have to. We are blessed to be sitting on oil and gas reserves that would last for hundreds of years if we were allowed to drill and explore by our OVER-REGULATING GOVERNMENT.

If government regulations (i.e. our President refuses to allow us to drill for oil/gas,etc) prevent us from "doing what we in the US do best - find practical solutions to real problems" and I disagree 100% with his tight-fisted rule, am I to be labeled a "fossilized mind"?

Hi John,

First, Wall Street did not collapsed. Wall Street created the collapse of the economy all around the world and still alive to start over again! Second, we don't have good laws and regulations made by unknowledgeable or directed people. Third, big companies impose what is good and profitable for their business and we have to follow that principle.

Quality is what solve a problem and what people want to buy! The rest is marketing through heavy advertising by brainwashing people.

Explain the difference between Kremlin's and Wall Street's despotism, if there is!

U NO WHO is right. Wall Street and big companies establish what are the rules and regulations and small businesses (job creators) have to follow. We are not over-regulated. We are badly regulated, that's all!

We vote, the voted and elected form a cabinet with their choice of people following the orders coming from outside, and this association of people creates regulations that commanded by the big businesses.

We want to protect newborn babies from toxic materials but we can sell house paints containing solvents breath by babies in their room and home. There is no real regulation for house paint VOC containt. We must eat bio to stay healthy but there is no regulation to sell all kinds of veggies and fruits from any country with any chemicals on. It's the rule for profits!

We have to learn that PROMISES and REALITIES are two different things but we vote for ONE. Also, don't forget that ONE promises and the MANY want profits, Gil.

Gil - I think we all agree with Garthh that we need to restructure our government as to how it actually operates (including the formation of regulations). Yes profits drive business, but it is unfortunate that some businesses would place profits ahead of safety & harm to others (we don't have to follow their principles), so some regulations are necessary. We just can't have the "foxes guarding our hen houses". We need a transparent process with knowledgeable lawmakers and large & small business representatives directly involved, where both are elected and accountable.

Wall Street alone did not create the collapse of our economy. They took mortgages with poor (illegal?) underwriting, which should never have been given to people who could not afford them (encouraged by our congressmen who want home ownership to be an entitlement) and bundled them into securities and debt obligations (which hid the risk) and sold them under the nose of the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) Regulations to greedy banks and organizations who did not pay proper attention the the products they bought. You are right - good regulations, not more regulations are needed. Wall Street operates under the strict regulations of the SEC while the Kremlin gets to write it's own laws and then does not need to follow them anyway - huge difference!

It is impossible to legislate and regulate ethics & morality. There are too many disagreements to what is ethical and moral, and there are always the dishonest finding legal loopholes. Regulations that pander to political whims or create business "advantages" happen all of the time and are downright dishonest. If anyone wants to blindly think their government can protect them from harm, they are going to be disappointed most of the time.

I believe that limited government and regulations, coupled with a majority of informed and participating citizens, is the only answer. I may be a dreamer, but if we don't have an evolution to this, we may face a future revolution if/when our economy fails.

IMHO, fair trade instead of "free trade" would solve everything. The U.S. public has been brainwashed into thinking that this is "protectionism" (as if protecting the U.S. is a bad thing!). We could have "green" industry if the Chinese (or other similar) imports were taxed accordingly for not being green. Why is President Obama pushing for another free trade agreement with Korea? The Koreans currently charge 4% import duties on U.S. goods and we only charge 2.5%. Free trade deals do nothing but trade away our sovereign rights as a nation. We were told in the sotu address that by eliminating import duties on Korean goods, 70,000 U.S. jobs would be created - the part that was left out is that 150,000 U.S. jobs would be LOST! The reason is simple - politicians get campaign contributions from corporate interests. Virginia Foxx of N.C. is now pushing to eliminate public financing of campaigns. Pretty soon we will have to change the nation's name to the United Corporations of America.

When one is weeding a garden, the root of the weed must come out to keep it from growing again. If we're ever going to get the government under control, so that it is working for us instead of us working for the government, thereby issuing rules and regulations which are sensible, we must get to the root of the problem, which is money. As long as the government has unlimited funding via deficit spending, any common sense solution to over regulation will be only temporary, and the political entrepenuers funding campaigns will squash competitors through regulations they purchase from the political class, resulting in mediocrity and poverty for the masses. The root of the problem lies in who controls the money supply, which was turned over to a private consortium of bankers and financiers at a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, SC in 1916. We know it as the Federal Reserve. Thomas Jefferson abolished the central bank created before his presidency, and left us with the following warning:

"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Ron Paul has been hammering away at the Fed for years. He was portrayed as a kook by the media. He is now head of the House comittee that oversees the Fed. His "Audit the Fed" bill passed last year but was watered down. He has reintroduced it this year, and his son Rand Paul, now a Senator, has introduced a similar bill in the Senate.

Hopefully the American people will realize that Republicans versus Democrats is equivalent to professional wrestling, where a phony fight is put on for the suckers who pay to see it. Until the Treasury Department, held accountable by elected officials, is given back the sole power to coin and mint currency, as is provided for in the Constitution, we will be at the mercy of unlimited government power controlled by political entrepeneurs.

One thing we can do is badger the hell out of our elected officials to support efforts to rein the government back into the confines of the Constitution. When poverty becomes widespread, well just look at Egypt or the French Revolution to see what happens. I would rather have the problem fixed peacefully.

Balance this: Get rid of 50% of the regulations and increase industrial output by 200%. Mr. Obama made his statement related to the review of all government regulations in the morning and signed more regulations into effect in the afternoon. The fact is he has no intention of reducing regulations. His intent is to keep the masses off-balance so they do not notice the disparity between his speech and his actions.

I agree with your statement and it's intent. How is the question. If we could ever agree on which 50% and the process to delete them, we could be well on our way. Thoughts?

To begin with, most of the EPA regulations are completely unnecessary. Carbon dioxide is not a contaminant in our atmosphere. Do people not realize that plants "breathe in" carbon dioxide and "exhale" oxygen? If we deprive plants of CO2, where will O2 come from?

As for the numbers, 50% of course was off the top of my head, but surely we realize there are thousands of regulations on the books that could be revised or deleted without causing our quality of life to erode. Those regulations only add to the cost of manufacturing/distribution, etc, which is passed on to the consumer. This makes our (the USA) goods more expensive on the global market. No wonder we can't compete on that scale.

Other posters have correctly noted that the reduction of our carbon footprint will do nothing to reduce the carbon footprint on the planet. The emissions of China and India will continue to skyrocket because they are not bound by eco-nut regulations that drive up the cost of their energy production. Ergo, cheaper goods from those nations.

oh non sense

are you advocating we go back to the days lead in paint/gasoline, acid rain & lakes that catch on fire?

Absolutely not!!! I'm speaking of emission standards. One of the biggest add-ons to our gasoline prices is the myriad of different "cafe standards" that exist in various states and metropolitan areas. Refineries are forced to adjust the mixtures to meet requirements many times a season. These costs are passed along to the consumer. Why not adopt one strict standard and let it apply to all of the nation?

I wouldn't mind if the standards in Georgia or New York were as strict as California. The air would be cleaner everywhere. No complaint here. This would allow refineries to have one blend only. No adjustments, thus no additional costs to pass on.

What about ethanol requirements? It costs more to produce the ethanol than the benefit derived in our automobiles. Gas mileage is decreased. Fuel pumps are destroyed years ahead of their designed lives. Corn prices have gone through the roof. The cost of corn exported from the US has sky-rocketed. People in third world contries can't afford the increase.

I'm not talking about lead in paint or allowing manufacturing companies to pollute our rivers and lakes with noxious, poisonous chemicals.

Someone in an earlier post asked for concrete suggestions. There is not enough time to explore all valid solutions. These are just some that come to mind.

Ethanol as an oxygenate is different than ethanol as a fuel

I don't know what a better choice would be

mtbe has some problems with ground water contamination

California [along with Massachusetts]is usually the proving ground new emissions regs

the production of ethanol is also a subsidy to corn farmers

the plants that produce the ethanol are many times owned by cattle ranchers, who get the brewers waste at a good price

No idea if this administration will make any headway with the mess of streamlining regulations

this has been a talking point for at least a couple of decades, the result usually being more confusion not less

"most of the EPA regulations are completely unnecessary" is a little too broad of a statement to accept, and as you can see polarizes the issue. Too many industries care too little about the environment and too many environmentalists care little about industry. So we fight it out through our political system which alternately tips toward one side or the other. Sure we could cherry pick a few obvious issues and that would be a start, but..........

We are a foolish lot. We periodically make election decisions based on political spin (our politicians telling us what we want to hear), we do not really study the issues sufficiently (a biased media does not help either), we do not follow their actions closely, and we do not hold them accountable for their actions or results (until the next election) but it is too late by then, the damage is done. A democracy works best when we participate and are informed. Our general apathy (way less than 50% usually vote) toward the greatest country and economy history has known is pathetic. We the people are the problem.

So what is the solution? Until we get personally involved, fully understand the "opposition's" views and work together for common sense & good - I don't believe there will ever be one. Our challenge is - How do we insist our government establish a transparent forum of balanced participants (regulators, environmentalists & industrialists) to effectively reduce the excessive regulations and strengthen the critical ones and have the wisdom and persistence to discern the difference? We need an honest and credible leader to pull us together.......2012?