Federal Regulations Cut Standard of Living by 75 Percent Over 56 Years

The 20th annual snapshot of the federal regulatory state published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) last month announced the arrival of an unhappy milestone: Regulatory costs now equal more than half of all federal spending. Put another way, the real cost of government in the United States is half-again as much as the federal budget. It is approaching a third of the country’s economic output. Said CEI in its Ten Thousand Commandments 2013 report: “Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations cost hundreds of billions — perhaps trillions — of dollars every year over and above the costs of the official federal outlays that dominate the [current] policy debate.”

Just how many billions and trillions the regulatory state costs, and has cost, the American economy has been put into perspective by two economists in their paper, “Federal Regulation and Aggregate Economic Growth,” published in the June issue of the Journal of Economic Growth. Rather than count the cost in dollars, the authors, John W. Dawson and John J. Seater, take a unique approach and attempt to measure how much lower Americans’ standard of living is today compared to what it would be if regulations had stayed at the level they were in 1949, the starting point of their study. Their conclusion? The average American household’s income would be $27,500 a month instead of the $4,400 a month that it is currently.

In their study they count the pages of federal regulations from 1949 through 2005 and discover that they have grown by 600 percent, slowing the economy by an estimated two percent every year. In simple terms, today’s economy, which produces about $17 trillion in goods and services every year, would instead be producing almost $55 trillion. And the authors apologize that their study doesn't reflect state and local regulations during that period as the effort that would have been required to collect and analyze them as well would have greatly exceeded their time and resources.

read more:


Views: 612

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The TEA PARTY must take over the USA.

Won't  happen. Too many idiots. BUT, secession is clearly a way out for us.

How? We do not want to secede from the USA   just Washington,DC

Jim Delaney, Clearly YOU skipped that week on the Civil War in school. The Union will DEFINITELY EXERT full military force regarding the unconstitutional act of secession. And folks like me (and Lincoln as recorded) that value the Union are resigned to shooting those who would not refrain from trying.

Reckless talk like secession while the government is still just barely duly constituted, provides a pretext for a tyrant to declare martial law, and act wih virtual impunity. Please think about what you say.



Secession actually is not unconstitutional under the original Constitution.  Yes Lincoln tried to change that and he tried to change this away from being a Republic............ ever think the wrong side won.  And NO the Civil War was NOT about slavery - - that was only an afterthought at the end of the war.  The Civil War was about the North trying to dictate to the South that they could not get adequate pay for their crops to be processed in the North.  The South had the farms and the North had the factories and both had slaves - some good owners that treated their people as employees and some 2 - 3% in both N. and S. who treated them with cruelty.

Arizona and Texas joined the Union only AFTER the Civil War and they both retain the right to secession in their State Constitutions and as a condition (with the Union) to their becoming states.

But most importantly, RIGHT NOW, is the QUESTION (since NOTHING ELSE WORKS) would you rather have some states secede and reform the original Republic (not the monstrosity of government we now have) - - - - Or - - would you rather have a full scale revolution to "right the wrongs of tyranny"??

"On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?"

--Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query 12, 1782


While there is no question that the slavery issue was peripheral to the War Between the States, the historical outcome-defined fact remains that, reneging on the petitioned for and achieved acceptance into the political UNION was never intended to be casual like the Articles of Confederacy faliure. In fact the unworkablity of a confederacy justified the risk of a stronger federal government of the current Constitution.

I realize that this knowledge is inconveinient to the quickfix, secession would suggest. Nonetheless, I remain resolved in the remedy to seditionists, provided that the Constitutionally described channels of redress are even just barely in effect.

Just because the North won the Civil War by force of Arms doesn't mean that a SOVERIGN STATE doesn't have the Constitutional right to secede from the Union.  Please point to the Article , Section, and Clause in the Constitution that stops a State form seceding from the Union... I'll save you time there is none.

In fact, our forefather's feared that the 'federal government' may one day become a tyrant and the Declaration of Independence' clearly sums up the duty of a free people to throw off a tyrant... and when necessary to "institute new government, laying its Foundation on such Principals, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." 

Our founders established Constitutional safe guards to restrain the Federal Government.  However, over time these have been eroded by ill fated men and the corruption associated with the institutions of all governments. Over time we have lost our way and the Constitution has been relegated to an bygone era and is now nothing more than a historical inconvenience to those in government.  Those safe guards no longer exist as intended and the Federal Government has grossly exceeded its Constitutional Authority... rendering the contract between the federal government and the several States (the Constitution) null and void. Where there is no contract for unity there is no UNION or REPUBLIC... hence, the States no longer need to be bound to a voided contract/Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is a fundamental founding document... the cornerstone of our Republic.  It clearly states that governments are created among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed AND WHENEVER any form of Government (including our present form) becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter OR TO ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government.

The right to secession is a GOD given right... too liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It is the right of men to establish governments that provide for the common safety and happiness of those to be governed. 

Our present government no longer abides by these precepts and has clearly overstepped its limits under the Constitution, too engage in tyranny ... looting the wealth of our nation and its people for its own purposes. As such, it is the DUTY and Responsibility of a free people to throw off the bonds of such a government and to either reestablish those original articles and precepts that once held them secure in liberty or to form a new government as they see fit.

The right of secession is found in the Declaration of Independence... and there is no article or clause that prohibits it in the Constitution.

Ronald - you are absolutely correct!  and

Michael G. Thompson -

You need to read what Ronald just said and ponder it and incorporate into that thought the last quote that I gave you above from Thomas Jefferson - 1782.  The only alternate choice from secession is a full blown Revolution!!   I suppose that is preferable to you.   Or is it?


Agreed! The Democrat Party is totally corrupt and the Republican Party are full of idiots that are easily manipulated by the Dems. The Tea Party is this country's last true hope!

You sure got it right.

Joel... if only the GOP were idiots, they would have an excuse for their treason.  As it is though, they are willing accomplaces of the Marxist; thinking to rob our children of their wealth and heritage they are playing a DANGEROUS GAME as they attempt to subvert our Constitution and out wit the Marxist. 

They will awake some day not far off... to find that they don't have the upper hand and that they too are destined to feel the lash of the Marxist on their backs. The GOP is working against the Constitution in hopes of establishing a quasi-fascist new world order... a plutocracy... a new aristocracy that will rule the world.




Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage, pnj.com/opinion


YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’


© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service