Connect with us

Business

Every Federal Regulator Destroys 138 Jobs

Published

6 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

By 

This lost output is made of jobs and businesses that were never started. Or were stunted by strangling regulations — mom and pops chased into bankruptcy as collateral damage to new regulations — say, a diner forced to spend $30,000 on a low-energy exhaust fan.

An Auburn University study says every single regulator destroys fully 138 private sector jobs every year you keep him on the job.

With nearly 300,000 federal regulators, the shock is that we still have any jobs at all.

The Two Scariest Words in the English Language

A lot of the excitement around the Department of Government Efficiency — DOGE — focuses on the dollars saved. But more important is all the things the federal government destroys with those dollars.

Specifically, the millions of jobs destroyed by the two scariest words in the English language: federal regulators.

A few weeks ago I mentioned how DOGE under Elon and Vivek is taking aim at the regulatory mothership that strangles the American economy and fuels the totalitarian administrative state — you may remember it from Covid.

A mother ship that is oddly enough unconstitutional according to a pair of recent Supreme Court decisions — Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and West Virginia v EPA.

I asserted this could unleash the economy like nothing we’ve seen in the past century.

And the reason is because it’s hard to overstate just how destructive regulations are.

Every Regulator Destroys 138 Jobs

One 2017 study by the Phoenix Center and Auburn University found that every single full-time regulator destroys 138 jobs.

GDP-adjusted to today, that translates to $16.5 million of economic output. For a hundred-thousand dollar bureaucrat.

This lost output is made of jobs and businesses that were never started. Or were stunted by strangling regulations — which are generally bought by big corporations specifically to strangle small competitors.

Along with mom and pops chased into bankruptcy as collateral damage to new regulations — say, a diner forced to spend $30,000 on a low-energy exhaust fan.

So it’s not the bureaucrat’s hundred thousand salary that matters. It’s the 138 jobs he takes out. Every single year you keep him around.

In fact, you could fire him, keep paying him for life, and still put a hundred families in the middle class.

In recent videos I’ve mentioned research saying one dollar in taxes destroys 3 dollars in GDP. A regulator blows that out of the water — each dollar in regulator salary destory 112 dollars in output.

Given there’s roughly 288,000 full-time federal employees involved in regulatory activities, that implies an annual cost of regulation of around $5 trillion. One-fifth of our entire economy.

This means DOGE slashing tens of thousands of regulations could spark Morning in America even if we keep every last one of them on the payroll.

The Top 3 Regulatory Offenders

The worst 3 regulatory offenders are the EPA, which prey especially on small businesses least able to afford their never-ending mandates.

Second is securities mandates — namely Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley — that have all but closed public markets to start-ups and shelter banks and insurers from competition.

And labor regulations — namely FLRA, NLRB, an alphabet soup including Obamacare mandates and occupational licensing. There are brutal for small businesses that might take a gamble on marginal workers but are locked in.

And they raise the cost of hiring to the point that companies downsize or move to China to survive.

Of course, these are just the start. The regulatory code has grown like a monster for a hundred years in literally every domain you can imagine, from braiding hair to collecting rainwater on your property to giving health advice — which is illegal unless you’re a doctor.

And, my personal favorite, the regulatory mandate to literally add poison — ethanol — to any alcohol that’s not taxed, including mouthwash. In case you thought the federal government would never poison you on purpose.

What’s Next

Deregulation is central to Trumponomics — low inflation and fast growth.

Because the best way to do both is to reduce the federal burden — the spending, sure, but above all the forest of regulations strangling our economy. Even if DOGE doesn’t manage to save a penny, gutting the regulatory state will pay us back 138-fold.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Peter St Onge

Peter is an economist, a Fellow at the Mises Institute, and a former MBA professor.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Canada’s ‘supply management’ system makes milk twice as expensive and favours affluent dairy farms

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Fred McMahon

While the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations continue, with much speculation about potential deals, one thing is certain: Canada’s agricultural marketing boards remain a barrier to success.

A White House official said as much: “[Canada] has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of seriousness in trade discussions as it relates to removing trade barriers.” That’s a clear reference to agricultural marketing boards, our Iron Curtain trade barrier. International trade lawyer Lawrence L. Herman aptly described boards as “Canada’s Soviet-style supply management system.”

Agricultural marketing boards are as Canadian as maple syrup, but more so. Maple syrup is international. Supply management is uniquely Canadian. No other country has such a system. And for good reason. It’s odious policy, favouring an affluent few, burdening the poorest, and creating needless friction with allies and trading partners.

President Trump’s distaste for the boards is well known. But, it’s not just Donald. The European Union, the United Kingdom, the World Trade Organization (effectively all of Canada’s trading partners)—and, wait for it, the majority Canadian farmers—all oppose the boards.

Canada claims to support free trade, except when we don’t. Canada seals off a large portion of its agricultural market with the system, but gets irritable when another country closes part of its market—say for autos, aluminum or steel.

Marketing boards employ a variety of tools, including quotas and tariffs, and a large bureaucracy to block international and interprovincial trade and deprive Canadians of choice in dairy, eggs and poultry. Without competition, productivity stagnates and prices soar.

The cost of living in the United States is 8.4 per cent higher than in the Canada, rent 14.9 per cent higher. But, thanks to our marketing boards, milk is twice as expensive—C$3.07 a litre on average in Canada versus C$1.47 in the United States. The most recent estimate of the cost of the system revealed, using 2015 data, that the average Canadian household pays an extra $300 to $433 annually because of marketing boards, hitting hard poorer Canadians, who spend a higher portion of their income on food than affluent Canadians.

Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal MP and leadership contender, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, wrote with outrage, “The average Canadian dairy farm’s net worth is almost $4 million…. This archaic [supply-management] system forces a single mother on welfare to pay hundreds of dollars more per year than she needs to, just so we can continue to enrich a small number of cartel millionaires… members of the oft-vilified ‘one-percent’.”

Don’t expect meaningful negotiations. Canada’s Parliament, endorsed by the Senate, recently unanimously passed Bill C-202, which prohibits the foreign affairs minister from negotiating increased quotas or reduced tariffs for imports of supply-managed products.

The dairy industry, particularly in Quebec, is the big player. To protect this mighty lobby, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet proposed C-202, backed by all parties, fearing a Quebec backlash if they stood up for Canadians, including for Quebecers who lack the privilege of owning one of province’s 4,200 multi-million-dollar dairy farms of Canada’s 9,400.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA), Grain Growers of Canada (GGC), and other farm groups oppose C-202. Scott Hepworth, acting chair of GGC, said, “Parliament chose to prioritize one group of farmers over another. As a grain producer, I know firsthand how important international trade is to my family’s livelihood. Without reliable access to global markets, farmers like me are left behind.”

Canada has 65,000 grain farms and 53,000 pig and beef farms, compared to 14,700 supply-managed farms, less than one per cent of the total of 190,000 farms in Canada.

Marketing boards benefit a tiny minority of Canadian farmers while damaging the majority and increasing prices for all Canadians. One benefit of Donald Trump’s trade war against Canada has been the resolve on all levels of government to reduce home-grown obstacles to growth, including iron trade curtains between provinces.

The spineless response to C-202 reveals the weakness of that resolve and politician’s willingness to bend the knee to rich lobbies, toss other farmers under the bus, and carelessly pile on costs for Canadians, particularly low-income ones.

Fred McMahon

Senior Fellow, Dr. Michael A. Walker Chair in Economic Freedom
Continue Reading

Business

Conservative MPs denounce Liberal plan to strip charitable status of pro-life, Christian groups

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservative MPs presented a petition in Parliament defending pro-life charities and religious organizations against a Liberal proposal to strip their charitable tax status.

Conservative MPs presented a petition calling for the rejection of the Liberals’ plan to strip pro-life charities and places of worship of their charitable status.

During the September 16 session, Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) Andrew Lawton, Jacob Mantle, and Garnett Genuis defended pro-life charities and places of worship against Liberal recommendations to remove the institutions’ charitable status for tax purposes.

“I have received from houses of worship across this country so much concern, reflected in this petition, that these recommendations are fundamentally anti-free speech and anti-religious freedom,” Lawton told Parliament. “The petitioners, and I on their behalf, advocate for the complete protection of charitable status regardless of these ideological litmus tests.”

Similarly, Mantle, a newly elected MP, added that Canadians “lament that some members opposite are so blinded by their animus towards charitable organizations that they would seek to undermine the good works that these groups do for the most vulnerable Canadians.”

Finally, Genuis, who officially presented the petition signed by hundreds of Canadians, stressed the importance work accomplished by religious and pro-life organizations.

“(R)eligious charities in Canada provide vital services for society, including food banks, care for seniors, newcomer support, youth programs and mental health outreach, all of which is rooted in their faith tradition, and that singling out or excluding faith charities from the charitable sector based on religious belief undermines the diversity and pluralism foundational to Canadian society,” he explained.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, before last Christmas, a proposal by the all-party Finance Committee suggested legislation that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers and religious groups of their charitable status.

The legislation would amend the Income Tax Act and Income Tax. Section 429 of the proposed legislation recommends the government “no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.”

Similarly, Recommendation 430 aims to “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.”

Many Canadians have warned that the proposed legislation would wipe out thousands of Christian churches and charities across Canada.

As LifeSiteNews reported in March, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) appealed to the Liberal government to rethink the plan to strip pro-life and religious groups of their tax charity status, stressing the vital work done by those organizations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X