February 3, 2004
By James L. Gattuso and Edwin Meese III
Election watchers -- or candidates -- seeking a sleeper issue in
the 2004 race for the White House might want to take a long look at
the state of regulation in America. They might find, as President
Reagan did, a potentially rich harvest of votes from Americans who
resent paying too much for goods and services, or fear losing their
jobs because of rules put in place by federal bureaucrats.
President Bush raised the topic in his State of the Union address,
which included one line promising relief for small-business owners
from "needless federal regulation." To actually succeed in cutting
back the regulatory thicket, however, the president must make
reform a real priority, not just an applause line in a speech.
Regulation imposes a huge burden on consumers and the economy.
The cost, according a recent study conducted for the Small Business
Administration, may total some $843 billion -- close to what
Americans pay in income taxes. Strikingly, a global CEO survey
shows six in 10 company heads view regulation as a serious threat
to the growth of their business, topping exchange rates, corporate
governance issues and even terrorism.
Some regulations border on the silly, such as "food identity"
rules that define the content of everything from cherry pies to
canned mushrooms. More seriously, other regulations hinder
innovation in the economy, like telecommunications rules that deter
Internet investment. Some rules can even diminish health and safety
-- for instance, too-slow approvals for needed drugs.
Can overregulation be a winning economic and political issue? It
has been in the past. Reduction of regulatory burdens was one of
the four pillars of Reagan's economic agenda upon taking office,
along with tax reduction, monetary stability and slowing the growth
of federal spending. With these policies Reagan was not only
overwhelmingly reelected, they also spurred the longest economic
expansion in peacetime history.
Some believe that times have changed and that regulation is more
popular than it was then. Last fall, for example, Howard Dean
called for a program of re- regulation. But apparently he
misjudged: The concept was attacked by two of his Democratic
rivals. "It failed in the past; it will fail again," said Wesley K.
Clark. Similarly, Sen. Joe Lieberman accused Dean of trying to
"turn back the economic clock."
If even some Democrats see this, why doesn't Bush make the issue
a priority? He has taken positive steps, most notably in rejecting
the Kyoto "global warming" treaty and its limits on energy use. And
the administration's chief gatekeeper for approving regulations --
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs -- has been
strengthened, enforcing stricter criteria for proposed rules.
Still, there hasn't been much progress. Nearly 100 economically
significant new regulations have been sent each year to the
regulatory affairs office by Bush administration agencies --
topping not only the Reagan average of fewer than 70 but the
Clinton rate of 90.
Given the effects of Sept. 11 and the corporate accounting
scandals, it may have been impossible to achieve net reductions in
regulations. And many new rules were justified, in light of
homeland security and other needs. But opportunities to cut back on
unnecessary regulations have been missed.
In early 2002, for instance, the regulatory affairs office
requested comments from the public on potential regulatory changes.
Some 1,700 suggestions were made, resulting in 156 discrete
recommendations for changes. This October, 1 1/2 years after the
process started, the office announced that agencies would look into
34 of the 156; no actions had yet been taken.
More troubling, in some cases administration inaction has led to
the failure of deregulatory initiatives. Early in 2002, for
instance, the Federal Communications Commission was embroiled in a
dispute over regulation of telephone companies. Despite efforts by
Chairman Michael K. Powell in favor of substantial deregulation,
the administration preferred to stay out of the fray. In the end,
much of Powell's initiative failed -- perhaps threatening the
telecommunications recovery and thousands of jobs.
As the Bush administration enters its fourth year, the president
needs to commit to a governmentwide effort to reduce the regulatory
burden. Taking this page out of the Reagan playbook might not only
prove popular but could provide a critical boost to the
--Edwin Meese III, former U.S. attorney general, is the
Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy at the Heritage
Foundation. James L. Gattuso is a research fellow in regulatory
policy at Heritage.
First appeared in the L.A. Times
The Bush administration enters its fourth year, the president needs to commit to a governmentwide effort to reduce the regulatory burden.
James L. Gattuso
Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Edwin Meese III
Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973