A focus on regulatory overreach, things that the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost, is probably the single greatest opportunity we have for having a positive impact on job creation.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.
The federal government must retreat from its hyperactive involvement in areas traditionally under states' authority and refuse future temptations to regulate and legislate on every issue that happens to come to mind.
The constant need for special waivers is symptomatic of poorly written public policy. It's a signal that the cost of compliance is unreasonably high; the benefits are hard to measure; and either legislators or regulators have failed to do their homework.
The bureaucracy is what we all suffer from..
Government has a legitimate sphere of operation. The problem arises when that sphere continually expands, encompassing areas where government lacks legitimacy.
The prize for ultimate inefficiency goes to America. We have built in so many checks and balances that our 'leaders' are the most thoroughly hogtied of any on Earth.
The EPA is now the Employment Prevention Agency.
Everybody who goes into government gets somewhat chewed up in the process. Being a senior appointee is like being at a startup, only more so: You run into opposition from the entrenched oligopoly of contractors whose business model is to extract as much money from government as possible for doing as little as possible.
It’s a battle in which the Wall Street lobbying and public-relations machine will have a decisive advantage…. With the regulators, you don’t have to win. You just have to gum them up. And that is exactly what Wall Street has done.
Giving governors more leeway in administering health care could represent a small, positive development in the ongoing saga of Obamacare. Unfortunately, instead of choosing flexibility, President Obama and his left-leaning advisers always default to rigid 'Washington knows best' answers.
Often, when I became a consultant to a federal agency, that precipitated its demise.
Government prohibitions do always more mischief than had been calculated; and it is not without much hesitation that a statesman should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals, as if he could do it better than themselves.
This country is being managed to death, being public related to death.
Government screws up.
Bureaucracy is like a fungus that contaminates everything.
Regulation is strangling businesses of all sizes in California, and we've got to streamline regulation so it's easy, not hard, to do business.
When the federal government imposes a mandate on the states or supersedes a state policy, conservatives often rise in protest.
Think what evil creeps liberals would be if their plans to enfeeble the individual, exhaust the economy, impede the rule of law, and cripple national defense were guided by a coherent ideology instead of smug ignorance.
Living most of my life in New York, I witnessed plenty of nanny state laws. Later, I lived in D.C. for a bit and saw even more. I assumed when I got to Colorado, the Wild West, there would be a rejection of such intrusive legislation. I was wrong.
I used to get very, very frustrated by people being told what to do by nanny in Brussels. And I remember once I rang the official who was actually responsible for banning the prawn-cocktail-flavoured crisp, which I think contained a dye called Arithrazine or something like that.
The economy needs thriving, job-creating small businesses, but excessive and ill-considered regulations too often get in the way of growth.
While legislation obviously is political, we now have allowed regulation to become politicized, which we believe will likely lead to some bad outcomes.
Every regulation requires two more regulations to deal with the unintended consequences.
Beginning with the stimulus, Obama has repeatedly inserted the government into the free market for political reasons - and with disastrous results.
