For his critics on the right, it has become a mantra: President Obama is the most anti-business president in history. But a new study of government data finds that Obama has enacted fewer rules on business than his predecessor, President George W. Bush.
A comparison of the number of regulations enacted in the first 33 months of different presidential administrations finds that Obama has approved 4.7 percent fewer restrictions on business than Bush. The Bloomberg News report found that while Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules up to this point in his administration, the Bush team approved 643.
Data provided by the Government Accountability Office showed that the average annual economic cost of the regulations put in place by Obama, however, is higher than those enacted by the presidents who preceded him. While the average annual cost of the Obama administration’s regulations ranges from $7 billion to $11 billion, regulatory costs averaged $6.9 billion per year from 1981 through 2008, Bloomberg reported.
“It’s been piling up,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told Bloomberg. “And not all regulations are created equal.”
To date, the administration of George H.W. Bush holds the single-year record for government regulatory costs on business. Under the elder Bush, those costs came to $20.9 billion in today’s dollars, besting Ronald Reagan’s single-year total of $16 billion.
Still, for the Republican candidates who would like to replace the current occupant of the Oval Office, regulation and Obama’s name have become synonymous.
“Uncertainty is what’s killing this economy, along with too much taxation and this onslaught of regulations that are coming out of this administration,” Herman Cain told NPR.
The argument against regulation is fed by an economy that is still struggling to fully emerge from recession. While a recent report by the World Bank found that the United States remains one of the top five countries in the world in terms of having a business-friendly regulatory framework, the nation’s stubbornly high 9.1 percent unemployment rate has bolstered critics of regulation.
Mitt Romney, who has frequently called Obama the most anti-business president since Jimmy Carter, pledges on his website that, if elected, he will “initiate the elimination of Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy.”
With government regulation front and center as a campaign issue, the president has faced criticism from both sides of the political aisle over the scope of government-imposed rules. In September, Obama overruled the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency and ditched a new regulation that would have tightened smog restrictions. The move drew praise from industry groups and Republicans, and scorn from liberal Democrats and environmental groups.
A comparison of the number of regulations enacted in the first 33 months of different presidential administrations finds that Obama has approved 4.7 percent fewer restrictions on business than Bush. The Bloomberg News report found that while Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules up to this point in his administration, the Bush team approved 643.
Data provided by the Government Accountability Office showed that the average annual economic cost of the regulations put in place by Obama, however, is higher than those enacted by the presidents who preceded him. While the average annual cost of the Obama administration’s regulations ranges from $7 billion to $11 billion, regulatory costs averaged $6.9 billion per year from 1981 through 2008, Bloomberg reported.
“It’s been piling up,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told Bloomberg. “And not all regulations are created equal.”
To date, the administration of George H.W. Bush holds the single-year record for government regulatory costs on business. Under the elder Bush, those costs came to $20.9 billion in today’s dollars, besting Ronald Reagan’s single-year total of $16 billion.
Still, for the Republican candidates who would like to replace the current occupant of the Oval Office, regulation and Obama’s name have become synonymous.
“Uncertainty is what’s killing this economy, along with too much taxation and this onslaught of regulations that are coming out of this administration,” Herman Cain told NPR.
The argument against regulation is fed by an economy that is still struggling to fully emerge from recession. While a recent report by the World Bank found that the United States remains one of the top five countries in the world in terms of having a business-friendly regulatory framework, the nation’s stubbornly high 9.1 percent unemployment rate has bolstered critics of regulation.
Mitt Romney, who has frequently called Obama the most anti-business president since Jimmy Carter, pledges on his website that, if elected, he will “initiate the elimination of Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy.”
With government regulation front and center as a campaign issue, the president has faced criticism from both sides of the political aisle over the scope of government-imposed rules. In September, Obama overruled the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency and ditched a new regulation that would have tightened smog restrictions. The move drew praise from industry groups and Republicans, and scorn from liberal Democrats and environmental groups.
