[mccookgazette.com] Mostly Cloudy ~ 39°F  
High: 63°F ~ Low: 38°F
Monday, May 2, 2016

Over-regulation shows economy

Monday, September 12, 2011

Most small business owners in Nebraska I visit with have a few horror stories about the federal bureaucracy and some of the red tape they have to work through to grow their businesses or maintain what they have.

Some of the federal regulations seem like useless make-work but if a business fails to comply the owner faces steep fines; money that could be put to better uses like hiring workers. It pleases me every time we're able to help a business work through some of the seemingly unnecessary regulations although it's troubling that we have to get involved at all.

Problem for Job Creators

One of the biggest challenges our job creators face is over-regulation. We need to improve our regulatory process, and reduce uncertainty for small businesses.

But efforts to improve the regulatory process should not undermine safety for Nebraska's workers and its consumers.

I believe a little common sense can allow for a process that protects Nebraskans but does not deter job creation and economic growth in Nebraska.

While I appreciate the President's recent focus on regulatory reform, more must be done to eliminate uncertainty, reduce costs, and simplify the system. Here are three things that should be done immediately that would help businesses and end up creating jobs.

Bring Independent Regulatory Agencies Under Review: Independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, issue regulations that have a significant impact on the economy. So I think it makes a lot of sense to bring these agencies under the same review process for rules all the other agencies are subject to. All regulations should be subject to the same review process, no matter the issuing agency.

Independent Cost-Benefit Analysis: It would be very helpful to businesses if there were a requirement for an independent cost-benefit analyses for regulations, especially costly regulations. It seems reasonable that an independent third-party should review regulations that will significantly impact the economy before they are set in motion. This isn't currently required and it should be. Regulators should be held to account for the costs of their regulations.

Periodic Reviews of Regulations: It would also be helpful to require agencies to periodically review their existing regulations to determine if they should be modified or eliminated, and provide their findings in a report to Congress. Again, this is just common sense. It's like when you read a story about some law from the 1890's that's still on the books. These things need to be reviewed every once in a while to see if they still make sense and Congress should be a part of that process.

Nebraskans I talk with are fed up with the job-killing bickering going on in Congress. They want action. They want measures passed that will put Americans back to work including trade pacts that increase exports to other countries. They want the highway and aviation bills passed to move forward on infrastructure while creating jobs at the same time.

If Congress remains focused on partisanship we will have job-killing gridlock. Both sides need to work together to eliminate uncertainty for businesses and families and create good jobs for the millions of Americans and thousands of Nebraskans who want to contribute to our society.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Senator Nelson;

Study after study after study has confirmed that one of the biggest concerns to small businesses is the existing use of Offshore Tax Havens by large corporations. They shift their tax burden to the backs of individuals and small business entities and create an unfair playing field. In fact, there is legislation pending that would allow these large corporations to utilize a Repatriation Tax Holiday. How can you justify letting the largest and most profitable corporations pay less of a tax rate than a poor sucker bringing home $20,000 per year?

For at least the past three congressional sessions legislation has been introduced to address this problem. Yet we still have Senators such as you spreading the false allegation that over regulation is the cause of all our countries economic and jobs problem. Do you have any hard facts to back up your statements or are you just going to keep saying a few of my constituents said this and a few said that? Make your statements based on facts and reference those facts so the rest of us can reach your level of enlightenment and understanding.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that deregulation of the financial industry was determined to be one of the primary factors leading up to the financial meltdown. I thought we were supposed to learn from our mistakes instead of perpetuating them into the future?

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 8:31 PM


I do not know where you get your "facts" from, but small business is not the least bit concerned about Offshore Tax Havens. Most of us do not compete directly with large corporations, in fact we tend to provide goods and services to large corporations. The better they do, the better we do.

Regulations is our biggest concern. Government entities such as the EPA, OHSA, department of labor, department of agriculture, and etc comes up with new regulations each year. We often must purchase new equipment to meet these guidelines. Consumers will not tolerate, and they should not, price increases after each new mandate from the feds. Large corporations get hit with new regulations, and must change the way they do business, which in turn affects us, the small business.

You would know these things if you ever tried to successfully run a small business, instead of worshiping the words of the latest leftists societal failure of the day.

The primary, if not the only, reason of the financial meltdown is over regulation, remember Frank/Dodd.

By the way, a poor sucker bringing home $20,000 per year doesn't pay income taxes.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 10:25 PM

Pretty funny to hear a democrat complain about gubment regulations. Which party is chiefly responsible for overregulation Senator? Which party screams bloody murder when de-regulation is proposed? Overregulation like Obamacare Senator? We remember your vote we won't forget.

-- Posted by Chaco1 on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 3:56 PM


Your comment:

I do not know where you get your "facts" from, but small business is not the least bit concerned about Offshore Tax Havens. Most of us do not compete directly with large corporations, in fact we tend to provide goods and services to large corporations. The better they do, the better we do.



Using your rational Small Businesses should be swimming in profits. Over the past several years Corporate Profits have sky rocketed breaking all time records. Unfortunately the Small Business Community hasn't experienced these windfalls to the same degree.

Your comment:

The primary, if not the only, reason of the financial meltdown is over regulation, remember Frank/Dodd.

The Dodd/Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act didn't become law until Dec. 21, 2010. Were you possibly referring to another Bill?


Your comment:

By the way, a poor sucker bringing home $20,000 per year doesn't pay income taxes.

Following is a link to Federal Individual Income Tax Rates dating back to 1913, you may want to review this table.


-- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 8:26 AM


No small business is worrying about off shore tax shelters. You may be, but no one else is.

Yes, you are correct, not all small businesses are swimming in profit, neither are all large corporations. But smart ones are, both big and small.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are solely responsible for the banking collapse with their protection scheme of shielding Franklin Raines from scrutiny at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

Ever heard of Earned Income Credits? Over 50% of the tax eligible population has, they don't pay taxes.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 9:57 PM

everyone pays taxes

-- Posted by president obama on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 11:50 AM

CPB to be more acuarate approximately 50% do not pay Federal Income taxes.

-- Posted by Chaco1 on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 10:02 AM

I wonder how much wealth the 50% that pay taxes control in this country. I bet its almost all of it.

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 4:52 PM


The Earned Income Tax Credit in fact does create a situation where some of the low income tax payers may not owe Federal Income Tax. The increase in the EITC (one under Bush one under Obama) were designed as stimulus programs and to offset the rising costs of goods and services while the wages remained stagnant. However, it does not equate to all low income tax payers receiving enough benefit to offset their tax obligations. This can be seen in the following table -- the greatest benefits of the tax credit went to those tax payers with qualifying children -- as it should have. A single person with no qualifying children had to have an adjusted gross income of less than $13,460 to qualify and a married couple filing jointly with no qualifying children had to have an adjusted gross income of less than $18,470 to qualify -- and then the maximum credit was a whopping $457.

2010 Tax Year

Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than:

$43,352 ($48,362 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children

$40,363 ($45,373 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children

$35,535 ($40,545 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child

$13,460 ($18,470 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children

Tax Year 2010 maximum credit:

$5,666 with three or more qualifying children

$5,036 with two qualifying children

$3,050 with one qualifying child

$457 with no qualifying children


I guess I have a different outlook on persons utilizing tax avoidance schemes than you do. I believe our Government has an obligation to recover all owed tax revenue prior to forcing cuts in Government Programs that result in a loss of jobs for Federal Employees, as well as private industry jobs which support various aspects of our Government.

To me it's like a farmer getting rid of his tractor because the fuel economy of the tractor is starting to hit his pocket book -- only to find out later that the fuel tank had a large hole in it.

The Federal Government is finally beginning to recover some of that lost revenue now but the damage has already been done to our country from the loss of tax revenue. To date over 30,000 tax cheats have been rounded up with many more to come.


-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 7:53 AM

Like Berkshire Hatahawy? Aftr Warren Buffet shot his mouth offf it was reported that they owed taxes for the past seveal years. Like Geitner our Treasury secretary that didn't pay his taxes?

I guess I look at it like this the do as I say not as I do crowd can kiss my..... well never mind.

-- Posted by Chaco1 on Sun, Sep 18, 2011, at 9:40 AM



If they are intentionally and unlawfully evading their tax obligations they should bear the full penalty of the law like everyone else.

I don't care what your name happens to be.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Sep 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: