Archive for the ‘Small Business’ Category

TRUMP’S TEAM TARGETS FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Monday, January 2nd, 2017

 

thehill.com/regulation/administration/312229-trumps-team-draws-target-on-federal-regulations

thehill.com/regulation/administration/312229-trumps-team-draws-target-on-federal-regulations

Trump’s team draws target on federal regulations

Share

SIX INSANE THINGS HILLARY SAID IN LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016

 

www.dailywire.com/news/9503/6-insane-things-hillary-said-last-nights-debate-ben-shapiro#modal

6 INSANE Things Hillary Said In Last Night’s Debate
AP Photo/John Locher


BY: BEN SHAPIRO    SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

Thanks to all of the pyrotechnics at the first presidential debate on Monday night – and thanks to Donald Trump’s Chernobyl-style meltdown over his IRS records, his business history, his Iraq war position, and the like – it was easy to overlook the insane proposals put forward by Hillary Clinton.

We shouldn’t.

Video: Fmr. Bush official Carlos Gutierrez endorses Clinton

Hillary openly advocated some of the most radical propositions in American history. Here are six of them.

1. “Profit-Sharing.” Clinton advocated making “the economy fairer.” In promoting that stupid notion – stupid, because mutually consensual exchange is by nature “fair” from any objective point of view – she pushed raising the national minimum wage (throwing thousands out of work) and “equal pay for women’s work” (read: unequal pay for the same work for men). But her truly insane line came next: “I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.” Now, many companies already have so-called “profit sharing” – employees who own stock benefits. On a broad level, all companies have “profit sharing” – you have continued employment because your company earns a profit. You don’t have a share of every dollar of profit earned because you don’t get dinged for every loss. But Hillary seems to be advocating for a full-scale governmental intervention into every business in America – letting the feds decide how much employees should make in every industry. This is, as Dennis Prager pointed out today, economic fascism.
(more…)

Share

DONALD TRUMP’S FULL ECONOMIC SPEECH – AUGUST 8, 2016

Tuesday, August 9th, 2016

Share

WHY WE OPPOSE JUDGE GARLAND’S CONFIRMATION

Saturday, March 19th, 2016

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

We Oppose Judge Garland’s Confirmation

He is a friend of big labor and regulators, not small businesses.

By

Juanita Duggan  

Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

March 17, 2016

President Obama on Wednesday formally nominated Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court. After studying his extensive record, the National Federation of Independent Business believes that Judge Garland would be a strong ally of the regulatory bureaucracy, big labor and trial lawyers. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of members we represent, the NFIB opposes Judge Garland’s confirmation.
In NAHB v. EPA, Judge Garland in 2011 refused to consider a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim by the National Association of Home Builders against the Environmental Protection Agency despite the law’s clear language. The RFA is one of the few federal statutes that explicitly require certain agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on small employers. Consider that the federal government itself estimates that the typical small business must spend $12,000 per worker annually just to be compliant with federal regulations. With Judge Garland on the Supreme Court, the EPA and other regulators would have a freer hand to impose even more costs on small businesses.
In another case, Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, in 2003, Judge Garland argued that the Commerce Clause, which regulates economic activity between the states, applies to an animal species found in only one state and which has no economic value. In doing so he foreshadowed the creative reasoning that the Obama administration used to defend the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius. We fear that as a pivotal justice on the Supreme Court, Judge Garland could apply his elastic view of the Commerce Clause to almost anything else.
In two other cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, Judge Garland didn’t just side with the government—he argued that business owners should be personally liable for labor violations. In other words, their personal assets, including their homes and their savings, would be exposed to government penalties. What worries us is that Judge Garland has been consistently wrong on labor law. In fact, in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB.
With more than 320,000 members, our organization is the country’s largest advocate for small-business owners. When we asked members on Wednesday whether they wanted to fight the Garland confirmation, the response was overwhelming. More than 90% urged us to take action.
It is especially important that we get involved now because this year and in future sessions, the Supreme Court will hear cases in which NFIB is a plaintiff. We are challenging the Waters of the United States rule, an unprecedented expansion of the EPA’s power to regulate water. The Clean Power Plan, another massive expansion of federal power that we are challenging, threatens to drive up energy costs for consumers—and for small businesses.
Given Judge Garland’s record on the D.C. Circuit Court, is there any question about which side he would take in these cases? When it comes to big government versus small business, we know where he would stand.
This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee. As the plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act, our members know the power that a single Supreme Court justice can wield. We cannot support his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

 

Share

HILLARY CLINTON FLUNKS ECONOMICS

Tuesday, October 27th, 2015

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Hillary Clinton Flunks Economics

She says we’re better off with Democrats in the White House. Is that so?

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES/IKON IMAGES
There can be no doubt now: The U.S. economy is struggling, inequality is on the rise and too many Americans feel uncertain about their future.
On the campaign trail, I have met many of these men and women, who sit at the kitchen table each week, straining to stretch their dollars from shrinking paychecks. Families who can’t save for retirement with near-zero interest rates. Young parents who are being crushed by their student debt. Shop owners who can’t get a loan because their community bank went out of business.
We’ve had more than six years to watch the left’s prescriptions in action and the verdict is in: They don’t work. Under President Obama, the economy has been hobbled. The 73,000-page tax code is too complex to navigate without an army of accountants. The administration has added $7 trillion in new federal debt, and has doubled down on environmental regulations that crush business owners and farmers while raising energy prices.
And yet Hillary Clinton said on Oct. 13 in the first Democratic presidential debate, “The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House,” and she offers variations on that line when campaigning.
Whose economy is she talking about? The middle class has shrunk under the Obama administration. According to government figures and industry analyses, median-income households have lost nearly $1,300 after inflation, while the prices of food, health care and college tuition have risen almost twice as fast as inflation.
Those struggling to find work are increasingly out of luck: Labor-force participation for working-age Americans has fallen to 62.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a level last seen in the Jimmy Carter-era recession. Millions have given up looking for work, and millions have fallen into poverty as a result.
Share

WASHINGTON’S TANGLED WEB OF CRONY CAPITALISM

Thursday, May 21st, 2015

 

Published on The Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com)

Ex-Im and Beyond

Jay Cost

May 18, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 34

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  And yet, one can only marvel at the struggle over this program. If an agency as questionable as Ex-Im can be eliminated only by a herculean effort, what hope is there of doing away with corporate tax preferences, domestic profits held overseas, onerous regulations that benefit large businesses, farm subsidies, affordable housing payola, rampant overpayments in Medicare, and the like? None of these subsidies will go quietly. All are deeply entrenched in our political economy, not because they are good for the nation, but because the interest groups that benefit from them are the most heavily invested in the political process. 

Ex-Im, in other words, is just the weakest link in the regime of interest-group liberalism that has slowly come to dominate Washington. For generations the government has been picking winners and losers in the private sector under the guise of national development. Those who have been winning will not gladly give up their spoils. They will do all they can to keep their benefits flowing, and the fight over Ex-Im shows that they can do quite a bit.

Conservative reformers who have been fighting the Export-Import Bank should be applauded, but this is not a game of dominoes. If Ex-Im falls, farm subsidies will persist. So will corporate welfare in the tax code. So will our absurd housing policies, which somehow withstood an economic calamity they had helped cause. 

Politically speaking, the only hope is to get the public involved in the fight against the inappropriate alliance between business and government. Few voters are aware of Washington’s tangled web of crony-capitalism, and this allows it to become entrenched. Thus, Republicans talk a good game about smaller government in their districts, then go to Washington and vote for programs like the farm bill. The folks back home are unaware that this is even under discussion. Interest groups with much at stake win, thanks to public ignorance and apathy. 

Conservatives have been disappointed with the track record of Republicans in Congress since their 2010 takeover of the House. There have been a few bright spots—the cuts in domestic discretionary spending brought about by the sequester, for instance—but from Obamacare to Iran to taxes to financial services regulation, President Obama and the left seem to retain the upper hand. Yet there is one issue percolating in Congress that could provide a rare victory. Conservatives are working hard to take down the Export-Import Bank, and they might succeed.

The Export-Import Bank is a New Deal-era relic whose purpose is to facilitate American trade. According to William Becker and William McClenahan, authors of a major study of Ex-Im, the bank has been an “entrepreneurial” institution that has evolved over the years to retain the favor of the nation’s foreign policy establishment and top economic policymakers. Today, its main role is to provide credit to foreign purchasers of American manufactured goods, especially heavy equipment and airplanes. Last year it authorized about $21 billion in government-backed loans. Few of these loans go bad, so Ex-Im has little budgetary impact, but then its critics don’t base their opposition on grounds of budget busting.

So what is their complaint? First, the bank is grossly inefficient. To support American businesses, Ex-Im extends credit to foreign governments and enterprises. Surely there is a less roundabout way to promote domestic business than to subsidize foreign business! The Ex-Im Bank’s defenders retort that foreign governments already do precisely this, so Uncle Sam must respond in kind to protect American jobs. Even if this is true (and many experts raise doubts), it does not justify wasteful inefficiency. While some exporters might be hurt if the Ex-Im Bank were decommissioned, its credit could be redirected in ways that bring more bang for the buck. (more…)

Share

COMMITTED TO SHATTERING THE AMERICAN DREAM

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
COMMITTED TO SHATTERING THE AMERICAN DREAM

American dream in trouble from president’s policies

President Obama has all but announced that this fall’s House and Senate campaigns should focus not on the collapse of American influence abroad, or on the continuing disaster that we know as Obamacare, or even on the apparent inability of his policies to create jobs, but on “income inequality.”

The mantra from the administration, like the rantings of the “Occupy” crowd and the new finger-pointing quasi-Marxist mayor of New York City, is that in today’s United States, it is impossible to get ahead unless one is born rich, works on Wall Street or finds some other way to profit from the misery of others.

Their rhetoric and proposed policies play on envy and remind one of the class warfare that has dominate European politics for so long.

Historically, betting on class warfare as a way to win a U.S. election is a bad bet. The United States is not Europe, and Americans have never been envious of the success of others. Americans have always believed in what almost from the beginning has been known as the American dream. The president is betting this is no longer true.

The belief that a political focus on “income inequality” and the politics of class envy will work is, in reality, a challenge to the very concept of the American dream.

Class envy and class warfare have never appealed to many Americans for the simple reason that most Americans of every background have always believed that through hard work, they or their children and grandchildren would achieve a freer, happier and more prosperous life than that enjoyed by their parents and grandparents. (more…)

Share

REPEALING REAGAN

Friday, January 4th, 2013

 

The Wall Street Journal

  •  January 3, 2013

Henninger: Repealing Reagan

After trying for 25 years, the Left finally unwinds the Reagan tax legacy.

  • By DANIEL HENNINGER

  • EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  Amid the seven growth years of the Reagan presidency, a who’s who of great American companies was born. In Barack Obama’s first four years, the number is about zero (Facebook FB -0.82%emerged in 2004; Twitter in 2007). Well, there is one: Solyndra.
Legend had it in Ohio years ago that when a baby boy was born in the perennial high-school powerhouse city of Massillon, a small football was placed in the cradle. The kid knew what was expected of him. When Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Barack Obama was a 25-year-old community organizer in Chicago. Like all progressives born now in America, the young fella knew what was expected of him if he got the chance. Repeal Reagan.

For the past 25 years, the American left has lived and breathed the political goal of undoing the Reagan legacy on taxes and spending. On Jan. 1, 2013, they did it. Until 2016, tax reform is dead.

image

Time Life Pictures/Getty ImagesThe White House signing ceremony for the 1986 tax-reform bill.

Reagan’s philosophy was an anathema to the left. It was his novel postwar idea to make people less in thrall to Washington’s investment choices and more reliant on their own ideas for using capital. The ’86 tax act reduced tax rates on personal income and also famously gutted many nonproductive “tax shelters.” In short, simplification. It was also bipartisan. The assault on loopholes—which were often promoted by pre-Reagan Republicans—was led by Chicago Democrat Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. (more…)

Share

HERE COMES THE REGULATORY FLOOD

Sunday, November 25th, 2012

 

The Wall Street Journal

  • November 23, 2012

Here Comes the Regulatory Flood

Costly rules held up for the election are about to roll over the economy.

  • President Obama’s hyperactive regulators went on hiatus in 2011 to get through Election Day. Now with his second term secure, they’re about to make up for lost time and then some.

The government defines “economically significant” rules as those that impose annual costs of $100 million or more, and the Bush, Clinton and Bush Administrations each ended up finalizing about 45 major rules per year. The average over Mr. Obama’s first two years was 63 but then plunged to 44 for 2011 and 2012 so far. The bureaucracies didn’t slow down. They merely postponed and built up a backlog that is about to hit the Federal Register.

We’d report the costs of the major-rule pipeline if we had current data. But the White House budget office document known as the unified agenda that reveals the regulations under development hasn’t been published since fall 2011. The delay violates multiple federal laws and executive orders that require an agenda every six months, so we thought readers might like a rough guide to the regulatory flood that is about to roll through the economy.

• Health care. It begins with the Affordable Care Act, which has been in hibernation because it was the largest campaign liability. Since Election Day, the Health and Human Services Department has submitted a raft of key health rules for White House review that it has been sitting on for months.

Hiding the details paid off politically but also undermined ObamaCare’s already slim prospects for success. Ahead of the law’s go-live date of October 2013, states and industries will have less than a year to prepare to meet the new mandates.

Three of the rules were released right before Thanksgiving, so insurers are only now about to learn how they’ll design and price coverage, since one new rule defines “essential benefits” they must include. Another deals with limits on how premiums can vary from person to person based on risk. (more…)

Share

INVESTMENT FALLS OFF A CLIFF

Monday, November 19th, 2012

 

The Wall Street Journal

  • November 19, 2012

Investment Falls Off a Cliff

U.S. Companies Cut Spending Plans Amid Fiscal and Economic Uncertainty

By SUDEEP REDDY and SCOTT THURM

U.S. companies are scaling back investment plans at the fastest pace since the recession, signaling more trouble for the economic recovery.

Half of the nation’s 40 biggest publicly traded corporate spenders have announced plans to curtail capital expenditures this year or next, according to a review by The Wall Street Journal of securities filings and conference calls.

Nationwide, business investment in equipment and software—a measure of economic vitality in the corporate sector—stalled in the third quarter for the first time since early 2009. Corporate investment in new buildings has declined.

At the same time, exports are slowing or falling to such critical markets as China and the euro zone as the global economy downshifts, creating another drag on firms’ expansion plans.

image

Corporate executives say they are slowing or delaying big projects to protect profits amid easing demand and rising uncertainty. Uncertainty around the U.S. elections and federal budget policies also appear among the factors driving the investment pullback since midyear. It is unclear whether Washington will avert the so-called fiscal cliff, tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to begin Jan. 2. (more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories