The Myth of Barack Obama, Regulation Lover

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wacphiladelphia/4558471727/">World Affairs Council of Philadelphia</a>/Flickr

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


ABC News’ Diane Sawyer kicked off Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate by asking the candidates precisely how many jobs they’d create in their first four years in the White House and how they’d do it. In a Gingrichesque move, Mitt Romney laid out a seven-point economic plan, one of which was making the federal government “get regulators to recognize their job is not to burden the system.” The other candidates continued the regulation-bashing, with Rick Santorum saying President Obama’s regulations killed jobs and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) claiming that “Barack Obama has given us a bevy of regulations that need to get repealed.”

Problem is, President Obama is hardly the regulation lover the GOP’s presidential candidates make him out to be. As Bloomberg News has reported, Obama approved 5 percent fewer regulations during almost three years in office than did his predecessor, George W. Bush. The cost of those regulations, meanwhile, hasn’t hit the same peak cost as those approved by George H.W. Bush in 1992. And looking across the past three decades, the cost of Obama’s regulations is nearly the same as the presidents before him when adjusted for inflation.

What’s more, a November study by the Center for Progressive Reform found that the Obama administration had watered down more regulations than the George W. Bush administration did at the same point in Bush’s first term as president. Obama’s regulatory aides changed 76 percent of rules coming out of federal agencies, the study found, while Bush aides tweaked 64 percent of rules.

On Saturday, in fact, the Obama administration’s propensity for whittling away at regulations was laid bare on the front page of the New York Times. After a multimillion-dollar lobbying blitz by the for-profit education industry, the Department of Education decided to weaken new rules overseeing for-profit schools, a regulatory tweak seen as a victory for industry.

Obama is no worse, in other words, than his Republican predecessors on issuing new regulations. While the US economy faces plenty of hurdles on the path to recovery, a unprecedented surge of new regulations is not one of them. 

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest