Red Tape Rising Under Obama At Unprecedented Rate

A new report finds that major regulation imposed by the Obama administration cost Americans more than $80 billion per year over the past six years. That figure is more than twice as much as what the rules issued by the administration of George W. Bush six years in cost the population.

The Heritage Foundation report, “Red Tape Rising: Six Years of Escalating Regulation Under Obama,” documents an increase of 27 major rules in 2014, which brings the administration’s total to 184.

At this point in the Bush administration, only 76 major rules had been adopted at a cost of $30.7 billion, which represents 38.5 percent of the Obama administration’s cost.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has also overseen the weakest economic recovery in modern U.S. history. Now, five years into the Obama recovery, the economy grew a paltry 0.2 percent during the first quarter. Economic growth for Obama’s tenure in office has averaged a little over 2 percent, less than half the growth rate under Ronald Reagan following the last severe recession.

Image Credit: Washington Times,

Image Credit: Washington Times

Regulations under the Dodd-Frank banking reform law and of the energy sector topped the list of the most regulations adopted during the past year.

The Daily Signal reports:

Many more regulations are on the way, with another 126 economically significant rules on the administration’s agenda, such as directives to farmers for growing and harvesting fruits and vegetables; strict limits on credit access for service members; and, yet another redesign of light bulbs.

Among the most anticipated rules is finalization of the Environmental Protection Agency’s stricter standards on emissions of ozone, which many analysts predict will be the most costly regulation ever imposed by any agency.

One reform proposed by members of Congress is the REINS Act, which would require congressional approval before implementing any major new regulations.

As reported by Western Journalism, Canada has taken action to tackle the hidden taxes imposed on its economy by regulations. The Red Tape Reduction Act (C-21) requires that for every new regulation introduced by the Canadian federal government, one of equal burden must be removed from the books.

Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has labeled red tape “the silent killer of jobs.” For businesses, an unnecessary regulatory burden seems to take away time and resources that could be used to create new products or improve existing ones, or to better serve customers. For consumers, regulations appear to mean higher costs and less competition.

One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President of the United States was to sign an executive order requiring all federal agencies to conduct a cost/benefit analysis for all proposed regulations and in reviewing existing ones.

The reduction of the regulatory burden during Reagan’s tenure in office helped significantly in igniting the greatest economic expansion in United States history.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the cost of federal regulations alone to the United States economy was over $2 trillion in 2012. Eighty-eight percent of businesses surveyed identified federal regulations as their top challenge.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

George W. Bush Planning To Steer Clear Of Brother Jeb’s Presidential Campaign

According to attendees at a closed-door event held in Washington, D.C. this past weekend, George W. Bush acknowledged that his younger brother will have a tough time convincing Republicans to support him in the 2016 presidential primary. Hundreds of Jewish Republicans gathered to hear the 43rd president speak at the dinner, some of them later recalling the content of the speech.

“He said that one of the challenges his brother is going to have is that the country doesn’t like dynasties,” one attendee, David Volosov, said.

The elder brother reportedly told the crowd that voters would react to a Jeb Bush candidacy by saying, “Oh, here comes another Bush.”

In an apparent effort to reduce the impact of such criticism, he explained how he plans to handle his brother’s expected White House bid.

“His response is that he is going to stay as far [away] as he can,” Volosov continued. “He is going to stay away from the whole process.”

Another attendee, Lisa Karlovsky, came away from the dinner with a similar recollection of Bush’s viewpoint.

“He basically said that his brother is going to have some issues with the name ‘Bush’ to contend with,” she said.

The day after the dinner, Jeb Bush reacted to his brother’s comments but did not dismiss the potential concern among voters regarding the appearance of a Bush dynasty.

“I’m going to have to show my heart,” he said, “show my life experience. I can’t be about any kind of dynastic considerations.”

As Western Journalism previously reported, George W. Bush also breached a subject during Saturday’s dinner about which he has been largely silent since leaving the White House. He took the opportunity to criticize the foreign policy decision of his successor, Barack Obama.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Silent No More: George W. Bush Finally Breaks Silence, Publicly Eviscerates Barack H. Obama

Breaking his silence on Barack Obama’s Middle East policy behind closed doors, former President George W. Bush said that his successor’s approach on Iraq, Iran, and the Islamic State group had placed America in “retreat.”

Bush’s remarks, which came during a speech in front of Jewish donors at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas, was transcribed by an audience member. It contains the most scathing appraisal by Bush to date of Obama’s foreign policy initiatives.

The former president first turned his attention to Iran, where he said that Obama had made mistakes by trusting Tehran’s intentions to disarm and by easing sanctions too easily.

“You think the Middle East is chaotic now?” Bush asked the audience. “Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”

He also said that the idea of lifting sanctions on Iran with the threat of automatically reimposing them should they fall into noncompliance simply wasn’t feasible.

As for the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, Bush said, “He’s smooth … you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

The former president then turned his attention to Iraq, where he quoted Sen. Lindsey Graham’s assessment that Obama’s withdrawal of troops in 2011 was a “strategic blunder.” Bush added that, while his administration had reached an agreement to withdraw in 2011, his intention was to negotiate a long-term status of forces agreement that would have kept U.S. troops in the war-torn country–something Obama failed to do.

Bush also referred to the emergence of the Islamic State group as al-Qaeda’s “second act.” He then noted that the man who allegedly killed Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was apprehended and locked in Guantanamo Bay under his watch.

“Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they’re doing it on TV,” Bush said, comparing the results of his approach to Obama’s.

As for the efforts to dismantle the Islamic State, Bush stated that Obama’s error has been a lack of coherent military strategy. When you want to defeat an enemy, Bush said, “you call in your military and say ‘What’s your plan?’”

“When the plan wasn’t working in Iraq, we changed,” Bush added, referring to the 2007 troop surge that dramatically reduced the insurgency.

“In order to be an effective president … when you say something you have to mean it,” Bush said. “You gotta kill ‘em.”

While Barack Obama has been extremely vocal about criticizing his predecessor and blaming him for any number of the country’s ills, the Las Vegas speech is one of the first instances of George W. Bush publicly attacking Obama’s record. However, given his brother’s presidential campaign, it’s unlikely to be the last.

h/t: Bloomberg Voice

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Netanyahu Says With Moral Clarity To World: Stop Idolizing Murderers

The one thing you could say about George W. Bush as president was that you knew where he stood. W had great moral clarity. There was no wishy washy Obama agenda and doctrine to speak of.

You are with us or against us, Bush rightly said after 9/11.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has the same type of moral clarity. He means what he says, and you can understand where he stands utterly and completely. This is really refreshing in the age of Obama.

This week, Netanyahu gave a speech intended for Israel’s neighbors and the world at large. The Jerusalem Post reports:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu honored Israel’s victims of terrorism at a Remembrance Day ceremony at Jerusalem’s Mount Herzl on Wednesday.

Netanyahu said that terrorists do not distinguish between civilians and soldiers, between those at the front and those on the homefront, or between Jews and non-Jews. “There hatred is blind, for them we are all targets,” he said.

“While they try to take life, we add life,” the prime minister said.

While Israel admires humanity,  “Many of our neighbors are not like this. They admire murderers. The more they murder, the more they admire them,” he said.

The prime minister called on Israel’s neighbors to “stop the incitement and the admiring of murderers, that’s not how you make peace.”

Funny, I don’t hear anything like, “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” I don’t hear Christians being bashed.

I don’t hear apologies for terrorists. I don’t hear childish statements like the ‘JV Team.’  

What I hear is moral clarity and courage, and I don’t hear any moral equivalency. I hear the truth from a man not afraid to speak it. and it’s refreshing.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

George W. Bush Took Just One Word To Sum Up Jeb’s Biggest Problem In Running For President

According to an analysis just published in The Washington Post, Jeb Bush is not running away from many of the views and policies of his older brother when he was president. In fact, says author Ed O’Keefe, the former Florida governor and likely GOP presidential contender is “embracing” and “emphasizing” what George W. Bush did when he was in the White House, particularly in the area of international relations.

If Jeb Bush is elected president, the United States won’t be on speaking terms with Cuba and will partner more closely with Israel.

He’ll tighten sanctions on Iran and urge NATO to deploy more troops in Eastern Europe to counter Vladimir Putin. And he’ll order the U.S. military to root out “barbarians” and “evil doers” around the globe.

Curiously, if the Post article is accurate, Jeb’s older brother says that very alignment is the biggest problem facing the younger Bush in his likely bid for the presidency — which, of course, may be a big clue as to the Post’s intention in making this analysis. Politico reports that the former president spoke to IT experts in Chicago on Wednesday, telling the crowd of some 7,000 that Jeb’s candidacy has a problem that could be expressed in one word: “Me.”

“That’s why you won’t see me out there, and he doesn’t need to defend me, and he’s totally different from me. The role of family is not to be a political adviser or a policy adviser — there are plenty of those around — the role is to say, ‘Hey man, I love you.’

When it comes to critical matters of foreign policy, Jeb Bush’s “embrace” of his brother’s positions — if such is the case — could prove to be a good thing if the younger Bush does throw his hat into the presidential ring. As reported by Bloomberg Politics, New Hampshire voters in a recent poll expressed their preference for Jeb over potential GOP rivals because of his perceived foreign policy strengths, not necessarily his other positions on major issues.

Jeb Bush has taken a slight lead over other potential Republican presidential candidates in a new Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm New Hampshire poll, even though his party’s voters have doubts about his famous last name and his positions on immigration and education.

A follow-up piece on Bloomberg noted of that New Hampshire voter survey: “Republicans said their top issue was fighting terrorism, and that the former governor would be far better combating terrorism than Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Senator Rand Paul Paul, or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.”

Though he has not indicated any specific date for his long-expected announcement about entering the 2016 race, Jeb Bush has accepted an invitation to speak at the May 9th commencement at Liberty University in Virginia. That’s where Texas Sen. Ted Cruz announced his candidacy only a few weeks ago.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth