It is not enough for the Federal Reserve Bank to destroy the currency unabated or the Obama Administration to continue two wars or propose an $863 billion ($863,000,000,000) health care package while increasing the deficit to $1.42 trillion ($1,420,000,000,000). This will not destroy the US economy quickly enough. In addition to spending money we do not have, the Obama Administration wants to ensure that there is little wealth to tax and sustain Leviathan in the future. So to ensure that few if any private businesses will come into existence, the regulatory agencies under the Obama administration have increased their regulatory reach.
Top appointees at the Food and Drug Administration, for example, have cracked down on dietary supplements with "steroid-like" substances that for years had been sold in gyms and health-food stores. In a move designed as much for symbolism as effect, the new chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission last month dispatched all 100 agency inspectors across the country to enforce a law that requires special drains on swimming pools to prevent children from entrapment. The agency shut down more than 200 pools.
The new regulators display a passion for rules and a belief that government must protect the public from dangers lurking at home and on the job -- one more way the new White House is reworking the relationship between government and business.
"In the Bush administration, the problem was that the political folks were hostile to the mission," said Michael A. Livermore, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Regulation at New York University Law School. "We've already seen the new direction of this White House play out in other regulatory aspects -- the Environmental Protection Agency and financial regulation. With the consumer protection agencies, you're going to see a lot more stuff happening because they fit Obama's broad vision for government." (emphasis added)
What I have found interesting about the Obama Administration is just how candid it is about controlling our lives. He and his minions are true progressives. The progressives of the early 1900s were very frank about their goals to use the power of the State and force people to live as the progressives thought they should. Obama is just as honest about redistributing wealth to make things more equal (See The Plumber, Joe). This is not the war economy of the Wilson or Roosevelt administration, but I think we're getting a good idea of that economic life sans a draft and Jim Crow.
This is an all-hands-on deck approach to strangling the economy. The Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are also becoming more active in enforcing regulations. The article admits that there might be obstacles to overcome:
The regulators still face significant hurdles if they want to dramatically expand government's reach....And the private sector is likely to assert that new regulations would be an additional burden in a weak economy.
"The argument is going to be that this is going to hurt jobs and be bad for the economy," [Michael A.] Livermore said. "That has resonance on the Hill and within the public. . . . That's the one big challenge."
This will hurt (some) jobs and this will be bad for the economy. Increased regulations raise the cost of entrepreneurship. Small businesses do not have the financial resources to hire lawyers to negotiate the layers of bureaucratic red tape as large businesses do. Since the State backs its regulations with violence, entrepreneurs face a huge risk if they run afoul of any regulations. The State will fine the entrepreneurs or shut down their business or even throw them in jail for violations. How many people would want to take that additional risk in the market place? It is hard enough to forecast what consumers will want and serve them. And yet the State burdens creative individuals with so many taxes and regulations, it is a miracle that our standard of living is what it is. Thus, entrepreneurs will be reluctant to open businesses which would create sustainable jobs. So I can see why Mr. Livermore believes that it will be a challenge to convince the public that these regulations are good for the economy. He has to find some really nice lipstick (probably MAC) for this pig.
There will be some job (sic) creation due to these regulations, however. The more aggressive rules will increase demand for lawyers and bureaucrats, but these jobs are not sustainable. These are not positions which create wealth or facilitate the creation of wealth. Government lawyers and bureaucrats create chaos which discourages resourceful individuals from investing. Moreover, these government positions are completely dependent on the production of the market to exist. This parasitical relationship cannot last indefinitely; the State agents' lust for power and wealth will never be satiated and will continue to grow with each generation. There will come a time when the State cannot survive because there will not be enough producers to live off of. But it will be a painful death.