GOP contender urges regulatory reform

I know not what others may say, but as for me, the competition for the Republican nomination for president of the United States is a major giggle. One can only wonder how it is that we have gotten so deep into the soup. In the background, we have an incumbent who must be regarded, in the vernacular, as totally clueless. Arguably, there is nothing wrong with his safety nets and health care programs for the dependent underclass - the concept of noblesse oblige had been around for millennia; while on the other hand, the sheer gap in understanding as to how commerce works is totally bewildering.

I do not know how our beloved POTUS manages his personal affairs, but even he must need some motivational twinge to reach into his pocket and hand his money over to others.

In the olden days, most people operated in their own economic best interest most of the time.

That was axiomatic, even for the "Spendthrift Generation." So for some of us greybeards, it seems straightforward to suggest that telling people what is in their own best economic interest would be a significant first step.

This would seem especially true for those who are hoarding wealth in the face of economic uncertainty.

If America needs jobs, America must have a prosperous and vigorous private sector to pay for them.

If the "Little Shop of Horrors" in D.C. needs money, it will take a prosperous private sector to keep it fed.

Those who proclaim themselves to be "Taxed Enough Already" myopically view government cutbacks as a silver bullet. By contrast, the profligates insist that government is the only "Answer." So the battle has been taken to the "hustings." It is hard to pay too much attention to all the silliness, of course. The recent tempest over whether people should be allowed to liberally spread a cancer-causing virus is an incredible - but not uncharacteristic - eddy in the stream. Cannot reason prevail for just a moment?

Ironically, the elephant in the room must have swallowed a foreign object, for at least one gem has been found among the detritus. One candidate, sensitive to the fact that the primary barrier to voluntary investment is government, has identified a way to ensure that regulators keep things in perspective. He proposes that a regulatory panel of victims of EPA actions be convened to oversee and restrain the acts of the agency. What a rad idea! Perhaps it could be extrapolated to all executive activities. Not.

One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist or even a candidate for president to see immediately that such a program would not work, but the point is made: Regulatory excess is out of control.

The mere fact that such a proposal is broached at a lofty level is not inconsequential.

When TARP and other bailout measures were discussed, it was thought that the funds would go to shovel-ready projects, but in retrospect, there were virtually none available.

The concept of a shovel-ready project does not and cannot exist in the current regulatory climate.

No one knows that better than the miners of Alaska.

Permitting is one thing; however, permitting is not simply a matter of a qualified government agent looking over the plans for a project and giving his stamp of approval.

Today, permits require environmental assessments with all their trappings, public input, litigation, and more, and that can be for every permit.

On a given project there may be as many as 50 permits required.

How sweet it would be, if a panel of the regulated got to rule on whether a project should be delayed for one more round of public hearings.

Although I doubt seriously that there will be substantial regulatory reform any time soon, and by substantial regulatory reform, I mean the cost and delay of project approval is reduced to the bare minimum; it is comforting to know that at least one candidate for the nation's highest office is aware of the fact that there is a problem. Conceding the existence of a problem is always the first step toward recovery.

Kudos to Herman Cain!