One of the most commonly repeated liberal talking points attempting to explain our country’s current financial mess points the finger at former President Bush, claiming his deregulation policies are the direct cause of collapsed our economy. If President Bush hadn’t deregulated the financial sector, they claim, it would not have systematically failed. If Bush weren’t a greedy capitalist making dirty deals with big corporations, they accuse, this would have never happened. If Bush never allowed drilling in the gulf, the Gulf oil spill would have been prevented. The list goes on.
The “more regulation = safer country” theory creates this false sense of security in the idea that more government control translates to more success for the common man. Yet, as corrupt politicians figuratively turn our heads with one hand toward smoke screen emergencies while emptying our pockets and shackling our lives through increased federal control with their other, we are left wondering who oversees these overseers in this realm of increased regulations.
I’ve discussed the logical fallacies of the “more regulation = safer country” argument before (see my posting from June 16, 2010), so I won’t repeat myself now. However, I will add some statistical data to support and prove what logic and historical precedent have already proved false.
Regardless, liberals still claim that Bush’s deregulation policies and lax government control caused our current economic, social, and ecological problems. President Obama even directly addressed the issue during a presidential debate in 2008, claiming, “[Regulation] is a fundamental difference that I have with Senator McCain. He believes in deregulation in every circumstance. That’s what we’ve been going through for the last eight years. It hasn’t worked, and we need fundamental change.”
The then-presidential candidate claimed that we had our opportunity for deregulation – we tried it, it failed, and now the only option is increased government control. The problem is, we didn’t have a deregulated society (and haven’t had one since before the 1920’s).
We didn’t even have LESS regulation under G.W. Bush compared to when his predecessor was in office. According to the graph (shown below), which is taken from a study done by Susan Dudley & Melinda Warren and published by the Murray Weinbaum Center, the number of federal regulators actually increased under G.W. Bush. (Note: the graph shown is taken directly from Figure 2 on Page 7 of the study, only I’ve highlighted the years under former President Bush in red.)
Therefore, President Obama’s statement and the “failed deregulation” argument is factually incorrect. True, some of the increase in federal regulation under George W. Bush was a result of increased homeland security personnel, however, even if we disregard the increase resulting from that particular group, the number of regulators on staff increased during his tenure by 4,000. In fact, the overall federal regulation has been on a steady increase since for the past 50 years. To further debunk President Obama’s errant yet widely-publicized talking point, according to Melinda Warren, one of the study’s co-authors, “the dollar growth in spending over the last decade was more than double that of any previous decade.”
He can blame Bush all he wants, but Obama’s statements simply aren’t true.
Mr. Obama has one thing right, at least: Something isn't working. We do need change. However, increasing the regulatory work force is not the answer, and this study certainly proves that our country hasn't been given the opportunity to try otherwise.
~Gee
