published Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

GOP DEBATE FACT CHECK: Regulations not a huge jobs killer

By CALVIN WOODWARD and CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Is regulation strangling the American entrepreneur? Several Republican presidential candidates say so. The numbers don’t.

The anti-regulatory fervor was in evidence Tuesday night in the latest GOP debate, but rhetorical flourishes, on that and other issues, masked far more complex realities.

A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the facts.

MITT ROMNEY: “All of the Obama regulations, we say no. It costs jobs.”

RICK PERRY: Regulations “are strangling the American entrepreneurship out there.”

RICK SANTORUM: “Repeal every regulation the Obama administration put in place.”

THE FACTS: Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. Since Barack Obama took office, just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs have been due to government regulation, the data show.

Businesses frequently complain about regulation, but there is little evidence that it is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren’t hiring because there isn’t enough consumer demand.

The conservative National Federation of Independent Business asks its small-business membership each month to name the single most important problem they’re facing. Last month, the most common response was “poor sales,” cited by 28 percent. Government regulation came in second, at 18 percent.

Concerns over regulation have increased in the past two years — only 11 percent cited it in April 2009, not long after Obama entered the White House. But the rise hasn’t been outside historical norms. More small businesses complained about regulation during the administrations of President Bill Clinton and the President George H.W. Bush, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

High levels of economic uncertainty are another drag on business, but economists say that’s less due to regulation than to fights over government spending and taxes. Both consumer and business confidence fell in August, for example, as the White House and Congress wrangled over the nation’s borrowing limit. But that was a bipartisan dispute that can’t be solely pinned on Obama.

———

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN: “We have a big problem today when it comes to Medicare, because we know that nine years from now, the Medicare hospital Part B Trust Fund is going to be dead flat broke.” She also charged that “President Obama plans for Medicare to collapse, and instead everyone will be pushed into Obamacare.”

THE FACTS: Bachmann is mixing up Medicare while exaggerating the danger of insolvency.

Part B is not for hospital payments, but for outpatient care, and it’s technically impossible for that part of Medicare to go broke because it is financed by the federal government’s general fund and by beneficiary premiums. Medicare’s Part A is the hospital trust fund, and it is now projected to become insolvent in 2024, 13 years in the future. Even then it would be able to pay 90 percent of its obligations, a far cry from “dead flat broke.”

When the fund has been threatened in the past, Congress has come through with changes that restrained program growth, largely by cutting provider payments.

There is no evidence to support her charge that Obama plans for Medicare to collapse; his health care law envisions nothing like that. In fact, a Republican budget that Bachmann voted for would make far larger changes to the program for the next generation, converting it to a voucher-like system.

———

HERMAN CAIN: Repeatedly touted his 9-9-9 tax plan as a “bold” overhaul of the tax code that would get the economy back on track, and be embraced by the nation.

THE FACTS: Cain’s plan is bold, and some economists think it includes features that would help the economy. But it is unlikely that the millions of low- and middle-income families who would face significant tax increases will embrace it. The wealthy, however, would probably love it because they would get big tax cuts.

Cain would eliminate the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and replace the progressive federal income tax with a flat 9 percent tax on income. He would lower the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 9 percent, and impose a new 9 percent national sales tax.

Cain argued Tuesday night that low-income workers would pay less because he would eliminate payroll taxes, which total 15.3 percent of wages, when employer and employee shares are included. But his analysis omits the fact that most low-income households make a profit from the federal income tax because they qualify for so many credits, deductions and exemptions. The result is that most low-income families currently pay less than 9 percent of their income in federal taxes. Nearly half of all U.S. households — mostly low-and middle-income families — pay no federal income taxes at all, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress.

Additionally, all households would face a new 9 percent national sales tax, again disproportionately impacting those with lower incomes who spend all or most of their money.

High-income households would get a tax cut from the lower income tax rate. Also, Cain’s proposal would eliminate taxes on capital gains.

———

ROMNEY: “On Day One, I will issue an executive order identifying China as a currency manipulator...If you’re not willing to stand up to China, you’ll get run over by China. And that’s what’s happened for 20 years.”

JON HUNTSMAN: “I don’t subscribe to the Don Trump school or the Mitt Romney school of international trade. I don’t want to find ourselves in a trade war.... We have to get used to the fact that, as far as the eye can see into the 21st Century, it’s going to be the United States and China on the world stage.”

THE FACTS. Economists largely agree with Huntsman, who was U.S. ambassador to China earlier in the Obama administration, that confronting China head on over currency manipulation would bring retaliation against U.S. business. The policy debate among Republicans — Democrats, too — is whether that risk is worth it.

Few dispute that China manipulates its currency by pegging it to the dollar. However, opponents of confronting China worry about a trade war that the fragile global economy cannot afford.

China may have more to lose than the U.S. if trade in goods were curtailed. But Washington depends heavily on China to buy U.S. Treasury securities to help finance its budget deficits.

———

PERRY: Pointed to “the 54,600 jobs that have been created” by two state funds used for attracting businesses to Texas or helping new companies get started.

THE FACTS: The funds have not delivered that many jobs yet. Lucy Nashed, a Perry spokeswoman, said figures for 2011 are not available, but as of the end of 2010, the funds had only created 30,749 actual new positions in the state.

To be sure, the 89 firms that have received $439.5 million in state money have several years to create the jobs. But one study found nearly half the companies that got money had not met their goals. In many cases, the governor’s staff allowed the companies to renegotiate their contracts or pay back a percentage of the funds they received.

———

BACHMANN: “I think if you look at the problem with the economic meltdown, you can trace it right to the federal government, because it was the federal government that demanded that banks and mortgage companies lower platinum-level lending standards to new lows. It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans.”

THE FACTS: It might be argued that the government pursued policies under both Democratic and Republican presidents to promote home ownership, such as setting up mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make more affordable mortgages possible, and the tax deduction for home mortgages. But it’s a stretch to suggest that federal regulators forced banks to make mortgage loans to people who could not afford them. And neither Bachmann nor most other Republican presidential contenders are calling for a repeal of the home-mortgage deduction.

Many of the subprime loans that inflated the housing bubble were not made by banks, but by mortgage companies that weren’t regulated by the federal government. A big reason they made the loans was because they could profit by selling them to Wall Street investment banks, which made money by packaging them into securities and selling them.

———

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Stephen Ohlemacher and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington; Brian Bakst in St. Paul, Minn.; and Chris Tomlinson in Austin, Texas, contributed to this report.

9
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
onetinsoldier said...

If thats the best the repugnant party has to offer I'm pretty sure Obama would have to beat his wife to lose. Checking the facts of habitual liars and idiots seems almost useless. Those who support any of these idiots think facts are something the lame stream media uses to trick them. Trolls just like trolls.

October 12, 2011 at 2 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

An excellent article, loaded with a solid array of verifiable facts. Unfortunately, as onetinsoldier just said, facts do not matter to the right-wing wackos who believe what they want to believe, come hell or high water. Unless it comes straight from Faux News, Limbaugh, Beck, or their Bible, they regard it as lies from the "liberal media." The far-out right wing fringe thinks even the truth is biased against them. I hope for a day when reason, common sense, and fairness FOR ALL, not just the wealthy few, will reign supreme throughout the land. But I'm not holding my breath.

October 12, 2011 at 2:46 a.m.
biofish said...

"idiots" "wackos".. yeah, people will listen to you guys. You demand fairness and equality, but you mock someone for having a different opinion than yourself. Maybe THAT is what turns people off about the liberal ideal.

October 12, 2011 at 7:46 a.m.
callison said...

What do you mean having "a different opinion than yourself"? That's the thing with the GOP, whereas others see it as right and wrong, the GOP sees it as having a different opinion. These are facts, biofish, not opinions.

October 12, 2011 at 9:07 a.m.
acerigger said...

BIOFISH said""idiots" "wackos".,,,try "liars","deceivers"!

There,fixed it for you!

October 12, 2011 at 10:58 a.m.
biofish said...

The Democratic Pary is fact-checked all the time with the same results. All politicians lie. I wish we could vote all of them out.

For you to sit there and put a halo on your head claiming your party does not wrong and is not responsible for anything in this nation is just plain ignorant. The same can be said for any party.

Oh, I am not GOP and never have been. I am more on your side than you know. I just want this "us and them" attitude to stop.. we can't fix anything until we come together.

October 12, 2011 at 1:52 p.m.
acerigger said...

Biofish,,"For you to sit there and put a halo on your head claiming your party does not wrong and is not responsible for anything in this nation is just plain ignorant."

Never said nor implied that 'fish.

October 12, 2011 at 2 p.m.
biofish said...

wasn't talking to you ace.

October 12, 2011 at 11:25 p.m.
Momus said...

Fish said "different opinion".

If I said the earth was round and you said flat, that's more than a different opinion...get it!

October 13, 2011 at 6:35 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.