Josh Lantz joins us today as a new writer. He also writes for True Capitalism. – Ed.
A study done by the Small Business Administration (SBA) said that in 2010 the annual cost of Federal regulations was $1.75 trillion. Our annual GDP is over $15 trillion, meaning the cost of these regulations amounts to about 11.5% of GDP. That’s a lot of money. Think of the impact on our struggling economy if we were able to cut those costs in half.
Why do regulations have a cost?
When government creates a rule (regulation), they often have to hire more public sector workers to enforce it. This expands government and pulls more people out of the private sector where goods and services are produced.…
Let’s start, with a premise:
Every Republican president candidate since 1964 has had their level of success or failure, respectively, tied directly to the degree of voter perception that they have or have not turned their back on conservatism.
Consider the history of the thing… and it all flows one way:
- Nixon billed himself a conservative, and successfully, even though in most respects he was a California Moderate, and came down more or less where John McCain was in the most recent election; to the left of George W Bush. Yet, Nixon had an electoral landslide in both elections. (Admittedly, the Democrats he ran against were a laughable lot, which didn’t hurt him.)
- Bush 41 figured if he bent over forward enough, the left would like
From the Business and Media institute:
There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the
From the GateWay Pundit:
New information reveals that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was indirectly sending messages to the FARC. The Marxist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is designated as a terrorist group by the US government. Speaker Pelosi was doing this while at the same time she refused to bring a free trade agreement with Colombia up for a vote in the US House. In fact, Pelosi took extraordinary steps to block this trade agreement with America’s closest ally in South America.
So, here we have Pelosi working …