Read The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic Online
Authors: David Limbaugh
The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic (31 page)
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
10.56Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
“TECHNICAL” CHANGES THAT DON’T “MAKE ANY IMPACT”
Even as he piles more and more suffocating rules on American business, Obama pretends to recognize the depressing effect of excessive regulation. “Rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs,” he declared in early 2011.
57
Ostensibly to address these concerns, Obama went to great lengths to publicize a new initiative to streamline regulations and eliminate unneeded rules. In January 2011, he announced in the
Wall Street Journal
that he was signing an executive order requiring “that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth.” He was ordering “a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.”
58
57
Ostensibly to address these concerns, Obama went to great lengths to publicize a new initiative to streamline regulations and eliminate unneeded rules. In January 2011, he announced in the
Wall Street Journal
that he was signing an executive order requiring “that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth.” He was ordering “a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.”
58
Looking beneath the hype, however, Obama’s initiative wasn’t aimed at the real culprits. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor described it as “underwhelming” because it didn’t address major items such as the Dodd-Frank financial reform regulatory boondoggle, ObamaCare, or endless new environmental regulations.
59
Bill Kovacs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce dismissed Obama’s changes as “technical,” the kinds that don’t “make any impact on the overall regulatory burdens that exist on the business community.”
60
He noted that meaningful regulatory reform would make the permitting process more transparent by identifying which permits are being delayed and for what reasons.
61
59
Bill Kovacs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce dismissed Obama’s changes as “technical,” the kinds that don’t “make any impact on the overall regulatory burdens that exist on the business community.”
60
He noted that meaningful regulatory reform would make the permitting process more transparent by identifying which permits are being delayed and for what reasons.
61
Obama congratulated himself for identifying and rescinding certain onerous regulations as part of his review, but he didn’t explain what led to some of the more ludicrous rules in the first place. Should the administration be applauded for repealing the absurd EPA rule that defined milk as an “oil” that had to be treated as hazardous when spilled? Should it be praised for repealing a redundant rule forcing gas stations to maintain gas recovery systems?
Besides, as quickly as the administration was repealing some of these foolish rules, it was passing more and costlier ones. Moreover, certain important independent agencies were excluded from the initial review process, including the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
62
“NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS BURDENED BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS” MORE62
Notwithstanding the administration’s vaunted streamlining effort and claims by regulatory czar Cass Sunstein that annual regulatory costs “are not out of line by historical standards,”
63
regulatory costs have actually skyrocketed under Obama. Federal regulators during George W. Bush’s two terms added a shocking $60 billion in annual regulatory costs,
64
but the Obama administration through March 2011 had already added some $40 billion in annual costs,
65
more than doubling the Bush rate.
66
Fiscal year 2010 alone saw a $26.5 billion increase in new costs, setting an annual record.
67
Also in 2010, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Obama administration issued 100 major rules, the most since the Government Accountability Office began accumulating data in 1997.
68
63
regulatory costs have actually skyrocketed under Obama. Federal regulators during George W. Bush’s two terms added a shocking $60 billion in annual regulatory costs,
64
but the Obama administration through March 2011 had already added some $40 billion in annual costs,
65
more than doubling the Bush rate.
66
Fiscal year 2010 alone saw a $26.5 billion increase in new costs, setting an annual record.
67
Also in 2010, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Obama administration issued 100 major rules, the most since the Government Accountability Office began accumulating data in 1997.
68
A recent study by Heritage Foundation experts James Gattuso and Diane Katz unveils the administration’s regulatory zeal. During the first three years of the Obama administration, 106 new major federal regulations added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans, and almost $11 billion in one-time implementation costs. This, say the experts, “is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years.” And again, hundreds more regulations are on the way with finance, healthcare, and various environmental rules.
69
In 2011 alone, even after Obama’s pledge to streamline the regulatory climate, his administration added thirty-two major new regulations, which increased annual regulatory costs by almost $10 billion and involved another $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs.
70
69
In 2011 alone, even after Obama’s pledge to streamline the regulatory climate, his administration added thirty-two major new regulations, which increased annual regulatory costs by almost $10 billion and involved another $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs.
70
Apart from comparisons between administrations, the size of the regulatory behemoth, in actual terms, is staggering. Today, the expected paperwork burden for businesses is 119.4 million hours per year.
71
There are more than 281,000 people working in federal agencies, up 13 percent since 2008, while private-sector jobs fell by 5.6 percent, and 27 million Americans are now either unemployed, under-employed, or have taken themselves out of the job market altogether. Regulatory budgets during this period have ballooned by 16 percent. The Federal Register’s 80,000 pages swelled another 18 percent in 2010, and thousands of new rules await approval.
72
71
There are more than 281,000 people working in federal agencies, up 13 percent since 2008, while private-sector jobs fell by 5.6 percent, and 27 million Americans are now either unemployed, under-employed, or have taken themselves out of the job market altogether. Regulatory budgets during this period have ballooned by 16 percent. The Federal Register’s 80,000 pages swelled another 18 percent in 2010, and thousands of new rules await approval.
72
In 2011, through August, the administration proposed more than 340 regulations costing $65 billion to businesses that are struggling to create jobs.
73
In the month of July alone, the Obama administration added $9.5 billion in new regulatory costs with 229 proposed new rules and 379 finalized rules.
74
These figures, it should be noted, are typically underestimated, and don’t account for hundreds of regulations the administration did not review because they are “non-major” rules—ones believed unlikely to cost at least $100 million per year. These include fuel economy and emission standards for cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles with an estimated cost of $10.8 billion per year, new light bulb energy standards to cost $700 million, and restrictions on “short sales” securities to cost $1.2 billion, as well as a raft of other expensive rules imposed by the Dodd-Frank financial bill.
75
As Heritage expert Diane Katz wrote, “No other president has burdened businesses and individuals with a higher number and larger cost of regulations in a comparable time period.”
76
“WHEN DOES IT END?”73
In the month of July alone, the Obama administration added $9.5 billion in new regulatory costs with 229 proposed new rules and 379 finalized rules.
74
These figures, it should be noted, are typically underestimated, and don’t account for hundreds of regulations the administration did not review because they are “non-major” rules—ones believed unlikely to cost at least $100 million per year. These include fuel economy and emission standards for cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles with an estimated cost of $10.8 billion per year, new light bulb energy standards to cost $700 million, and restrictions on “short sales” securities to cost $1.2 billion, as well as a raft of other expensive rules imposed by the Dodd-Frank financial bill.
75
As Heritage expert Diane Katz wrote, “No other president has burdened businesses and individuals with a higher number and larger cost of regulations in a comparable time period.”
76
On top of all the damaging regulations already approved during Obama’s short presidency, this nation is in for a regulatory tsunami once ObamaCare is fully implemented.
77
For example, ObamaCare will require major fast-food franchises to post calorie data on their menus and menu signs, an expensive, needless rule that will cost jobs. Domino’s Pizza chain might have to spend $5 million to include this information, which is already available on its website and on nutritional pamphlets available in its stores. The CEO of CKE Restaurants, which owns Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr., told the House Oversight Committee the rule could cost his company $1.5 million, an amount sufficient to build one and a half new restaurants.
77
For example, ObamaCare will require major fast-food franchises to post calorie data on their menus and menu signs, an expensive, needless rule that will cost jobs. Domino’s Pizza chain might have to spend $5 million to include this information, which is already available on its website and on nutritional pamphlets available in its stores. The CEO of CKE Restaurants, which owns Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr., told the House Oversight Committee the rule could cost his company $1.5 million, an amount sufficient to build one and a half new restaurants.
Ironically, but par for the course for nanny-state interventions, the law will end up depriving the customer of information that is now accessible. Every Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. store currently has wall posters that provide information on fat, sodium, cholesterol, protein, carbohydrate content, and other data. Those posters will probably have to be removed for space considerations once the new law kicks in.
78
So the law of unintended consequences (and that’s giving its authors the benefit of the doubt) will result in this rule not only addressing a non-existent problem, but creating a new one, e.g., for customers who might be measuring their fat, carb, or protein intake. It will also result in prohibitive costs each time a restaurant wants to change its menu items. “There are so many different things that I have to do right now that are just completely unnecessary that take away from our profits,” said Charlie Malament, owner of four Domino’s stores in Maryland. “When does it end? When does this stuff end? Just give a small business guy a break and let me take care of my customers and take care of my people.”
79
REGULATION NATION78
So the law of unintended consequences (and that’s giving its authors the benefit of the doubt) will result in this rule not only addressing a non-existent problem, but creating a new one, e.g., for customers who might be measuring their fat, carb, or protein intake. It will also result in prohibitive costs each time a restaurant wants to change its menu items. “There are so many different things that I have to do right now that are just completely unnecessary that take away from our profits,” said Charlie Malament, owner of four Domino’s stores in Maryland. “When does it end? When does this stuff end? Just give a small business guy a break and let me take care of my customers and take care of my people.”
79
In September 2011, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent made a remarkable statement. “In many respects, it is easier doing business in China, because of America’s antiquated tax structure and political gridlock,” he declared. “If you talk about an American company doing business in the world today with its Chinese, Russian, European or Japanese counterparts, of course we’re disadvantaged. A Chinese or Swiss company can do whatever it wants with those funds [earned overseas]. When we want to bring them back, we are faced with a very large tax burden.”
80
80
Other CEOs share Kent’s dismay at the state of the U.S. business climate. Clarence Otis Jr., CEO of Darden Restaurants, the parent of Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and LongHorn Steakhouse, said that the mountains of new regulations make it “increasingly difficult for businesses to see why and where creating new jobs makes sense.” Otis said it was particularly difficult for businesses with low profit margins to survive in such an overregulated environment. In an op-ed for CNN, Otis argued that excessive regulations are killing job creation. He cited “regulatory mandates flowing from federal health care reform,” as well as mandated paid leave and employee meal and rest break provisions in the law. Otis said that neither his shareholders nor customers could “afford the cost of the unbridled increase in regulation we’re experiencing.” Businesses like his want to expand, he said, but “a regulatory ‘perfect storm’ is forming that causes even the most well-intentioned business leaders to pause.”
81
81
The compliance costs for private-sector businesses are overwhelming. According to a Small Business Administration study, as of 2008, even before Obama’s regulatory blizzard, cumulative compliance costs of federal rules and regulations for American businesses were more than $1.75 trillion a year. Small businesses—those which can least afford it and which create most of America’s new jobs—were hardest hit. The SBA study found that small companies spend 36 percent more per employee for regulatory compliance costs than larger companies.
82
82
Similarly, the Fraser Institute, which ranks nations based on their comparative economic liberty, dropped the United States to tenth place, based on 2009 data, placing us, for the first time, behind Canada. “Much of this decline is a result of higher government spending and borrowing and lower scores for the legal structure and property rights components.”
83
This staggering $1.75 trillion annual cost of regulation is twice the amount of individual income taxes collected in the United States in 2010.
84
83
This staggering $1.75 trillion annual cost of regulation is twice the amount of individual income taxes collected in the United States in 2010.
84
A group of Republican Congress members led by Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers released a striking chart showing the dramatic impact on jobs likely to stem from just five of the Obama administration’s proposed regulations.
85
85
SOURCES:1. Utah AH Shurtleff, Congressional Testimony, 9/15/20112. Portland Cement Assoc., The Monitor, Flash Report, January 20113.
EnergyFairness.org
: Veritas Study, 6/20/2114. Affordable Power Alliance Study, March 20115. CIBO Boiler MACT Jobs Study, 9/7/2011
It’s increasingly clear that one of the best things—if not
the
best thing—we can do to spark economic growth is to ease the regulatory burden on business. The Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies found that a mere 5 percent reduction in the regulatory budget, amounting to $2.8 billion, could result in some $75 billion in private-sector growth in the GDP and add 1.2 million jobs per year. The paper concluded that to eliminate just one regulator would grow the economy an average of $6.2 million and create 100 private sector jobs annually. On the other hand, for every million-dollar jump in regulatory budget costs, the economy can be expected to lose 420 private sector jobs. The paper’s authors thus suggest that Congress begin its budget cutting with the regulatory budget.
86
“THERE’S MORE THAN ONE WAY OF SKINNING THE CAT”the
best thing—we can do to spark economic growth is to ease the regulatory burden on business. The Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies found that a mere 5 percent reduction in the regulatory budget, amounting to $2.8 billion, could result in some $75 billion in private-sector growth in the GDP and add 1.2 million jobs per year. The paper concluded that to eliminate just one regulator would grow the economy an average of $6.2 million and create 100 private sector jobs annually. On the other hand, for every million-dollar jump in regulatory budget costs, the economy can be expected to lose 420 private sector jobs. The paper’s authors thus suggest that Congress begin its budget cutting with the regulatory budget.
86
An incomprehensible amount of legislative power has been delegated to or usurped by the federal administrative monster controlling much of our country. The Constitution gives Congress legislative authority, but over the years it has increasingly abdicated its legislative duties through delegation to virtually unaccountable, independent administrative agencies (most of which are in the executive branch). The judicial branch bears some responsibility for this pattern of extra-constitutional delegation as well, having long since abdicated its role as a constitutional watchdog and having routinely approved such transfers of power.
As a result, Congress can delegate some its tough decisions to theoretically impartial agencies and avoid hard work and political heat. This transfer of power further removes the people from the governing process, as these agencies answer to no one except the courts, which in the absence of something akin to gross error, rubber stamp their decisions. This is one of the insidious ways that our brilliantly crafted constitutional republic has been subverted in favor of rule by a soulless administrative state.
A perfect example of this phenomenon is seen in an incident that occurred following the 2010 congressional elections, when the people resoundingly rejected Obama’s big government agenda. After the newly elected Republican majority said “no” to the administration’s relentless march toward socialism with such legislative nightmares as cap-and-trade, Team Obama just regrouped and negotiated an end-run through administrative rules and regulations. Obama broadcast his intentions by responding to the failure of cap-and-trade with the arrogant, defiant proclamation, “There’s more than one way of skinning the cat.”
This is part of a pattern seen throughout the administration: although the FCC is ostensibly independent, under the leadership of Obama-appointed directors, it seeks to regulate the internet when legislation fails; the EPA exerts ever more authority over wetlands on its own initiative; and the administration capriciously grants thousands of waivers to exempt chosen companies and other concerns from some of the onerous costs of ObamaCare—all without congressional authority, accountability, or oversight.
Congressional Republicans tried to rein in this regulatory madness. In December 2011, the House passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). The bill—which Obama has vowed to veto and which, in any case, is not expected to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate—would require that Congress approve every new “major” rule (any rule that the OMB determines will result in a $100 million annual effect on the economy) adopted by the executive branch.
87
This would make Congress more accountable and would certainly give the public more recourse than it has now, being subject to a pantheon of administrative agencies with little direct accountability. If Congress were required to approve every major administrative rule, the rule-makers would doubtless draft them less cavalierly. Senator Marco Rubio, a co-sponsor of the bill, said, “It’s time for Senate Democrats to stop standing in the way of another commonsense bill passed by the House of Representatives that will bring greater accountability and transparency to an archaic regulatory system that is actively impeding desperately needed private-sector job creation.”
88
FINED $15,000 FOR HIRING TOO MANY BROKERS87
This would make Congress more accountable and would certainly give the public more recourse than it has now, being subject to a pantheon of administrative agencies with little direct accountability. If Congress were required to approve every major administrative rule, the rule-makers would doubtless draft them less cavalierly. Senator Marco Rubio, a co-sponsor of the bill, said, “It’s time for Senate Democrats to stop standing in the way of another commonsense bill passed by the House of Representatives that will bring greater accountability and transparency to an archaic regulatory system that is actively impeding desperately needed private-sector job creation.”
88
Peter Schiff, chief executive officer of Euro Pacific Capital, Inc., testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulator Affairs on his firsthand experience with the stifling impact of government regulations on hiring and economic growth. Regulations have “substantially increased the costs and risks associated with job creation,” Schiff explained. “Employers are subjected to all sorts of onerous regulations, taxes and legal liability.” He said that in his business, securities regulations have prohibited him from hiring brokers for more than three years. “I was even fined fifteen thousand dollars expressly for hiring too many brokers in 2008,” he said. “In the process I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold.”
89
89
Oblivious to such testimony, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid argued in a floor speech on November 15, 2011, that it’s a “myth” that regulations cost jobs. “Only a tiny fraction of layoffs” have anything at all to do with tighter regulation, says Reid, who also claims there isn’t “a single shred of evidence” that regulations cause major economic harm.
90
90
Reid was relying on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reported that for the third quarter of 2011, only 0.3 percent of respondents polled cited governmental regulations and intervention as the reason for mass layoffs—defined as fifty or more workers being laid off for thirty-one days or more. But Heritage scholar James Gattuso explains that just looking at mass layoffs can be misleading. While those kinds of layoffs get the most media attention, they are just a portion of the job-loss equation. Many layoffs, says Gattuso, involve fewer than fifty employees at a time; indeed most small businesses don’t even have fifty employees.
More important, as previously explained, job losses are
not
the main problem; a bigger one is the lack of job
creation
. Unemployment has remained high despite the fact that gross job losses have been relatively low; that’s because job creation has been very low. The administration can spout the false metric of “jobs saved” all it wants, but until the economy starts creating new jobs, unemployment will remain high. The surveys cited by Reid are thoroughly deceptive, since employers aren’t asked why they did not expand, only why they laid off employees.
91
“DON’T ALWAYS BELIEVE WHAT YOU HEAR”not
the main problem; a bigger one is the lack of job
creation
. Unemployment has remained high despite the fact that gross job losses have been relatively low; that’s because job creation has been very low. The administration can spout the false metric of “jobs saved” all it wants, but until the economy starts creating new jobs, unemployment will remain high. The surveys cited by Reid are thoroughly deceptive, since employers aren’t asked why they did not expand, only why they laid off employees.
91
Obama’s EPA takes Reid’s argument one step further, claiming that increased regulations actually boost employment. The EPA wrote in February 2011 that “in periods of high unemployment, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may have a stimulative effect that results in a net increase in overall employment.”
92
92
This perverse belief comes from the top, for Obama is equally obtuse about the smothering effect of regulations. At a town hall meeting in Atkinson, Illinois, a farmer told him, “We enjoy growing corn and soybeans and we feel we do this as safely and efficiently as we possibly can, and mother nature has really challenged us this growing season…. Please don’t challenge us with more rules and regulations from Washington, D.C. that hinder us from doing that. We would prefer to start our day in a tractor cab or combine cab, rather than filling out forms and permits to do what we like to do.” After Obama asked him to cite a specific rule, the farmer discussed rumors of impending rules on noise pollution, dust pollution, and water runoff. Obama glibly responded, “Don’t always believe what you hear,” adding that he suspected if the farmer talked to the USDA, he’d find “that some of your fears are unfounded.” Without ever addressing the meat of the concern, Obama assured the farmer that he was very concerned about farming problems because he comes from a farm state.
93
93
Well, if the farmer’s fears were unfounded, how does Obama explain the EPA’s ludicrous proposed regulation on farm dust? The agency is seeking to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) concerning “coarse particulate matter,” otherwise known as dust. The current NAAQS regulate such things as soot, and now it’s interested in that ubiquitous, evil substance, dirt.
The EPA’s own scientific panel hasn’t even determined that further regulation would be helpful, but that is no barrier to the agency, which apparently has little concern for the extra costs and time burdens this would place on farmers, resulting in higher food prices for the rest of us. Tightening the regulations could require farmers to undertake dust-control activities such as watering down dirt and gravel roads. Congresswoman Kristi Noem, to prevent or at least delay this nonsense, introduced the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011, which would bar the EPA from effectively revising the NAAQS for at least a year following passage of the act.
94
“The proposal to regulate farm dust is one of the most absurd ideas to come out of the EPA in a long time,” said Congressman Tom Cole, a co-sponsor of the bill. Cole insisted that farmers are fully capable of implementing commonsense measures to control their own dust and don’t need further job-killing regulations. None of these arguments made any impression on Obama, who threatened to veto the bill.
95
“BUREAUCRATS WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS”94
“The proposal to regulate farm dust is one of the most absurd ideas to come out of the EPA in a long time,” said Congressman Tom Cole, a co-sponsor of the bill. Cole insisted that farmers are fully capable of implementing commonsense measures to control their own dust and don’t need further job-killing regulations. None of these arguments made any impression on Obama, who threatened to veto the bill.
95
The administration also heard an earful when White House chief of staff William M. Daley met with hundreds of manufacturing executives, who weren’t buying Daley’s claims that the administration was their friend. When Massachusetts manufacturing executive Doug Starrett claimed the administration was blocking construction on his company’s facilities in order to protect fish, the group of businessmen “erupted in applause.” Admitting that “sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley conceded that the number of rules and regulations “that come out of agencies is overwhelming.”
96
Yet the administration never changes its approach, which is to meet with business representatives and give speeches, never meaningfully reducing the smothering constellation of regulations.
96
Yet the administration never changes its approach, which is to meet with business representatives and give speeches, never meaningfully reducing the smothering constellation of regulations.
One businessman perfectly captured the administration’s obtuseness about the business world. Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, said his company would never have succeeded had it launched today with these “impossible” regulations. “Every day,” he explained, “you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It’s become stifling.” Asked about Obama’s promise to streamline and eliminate regulations, he replied, “His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones.” Asked if he could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, he replied, “I’m not sure Obama would understand anything that I’d say, because he’s never really worked a day outside the political or legal arena. He doesn’t know how to make a payroll, he doesn’t understand the problems businesses face.”
97
97
Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro had equally sharp criticism for the administration’s regulatory straightjacket. “I challenge anyone, and no one’s ever answered me, to come up with a more anti-business administration,” said Shapiro. “They’re doing things that are very harmful to the economy. They’re not bad people. They just have no experience with business.” He argued that Obama is fostering a mindset that “business is evil,” and which tells businesses that “there’s not a sympathetic ear at all” in the White House. “It’s the ‘business is the enemy’ thinking. I don’t think that’s a healthy thing to do.”
98
98
While the administration is smothering the private sector, it is growing the public sector at an unprecedented rate. One study showed that between 2009 and 2010, the regulatory staff at federal agencies increased about 3 percent, with indications it would grow by another 4 percent in 2011. In fact, if the federal government’s regulatory operation were considered a business, it would be among the nation’s fifty largest revenue producers and the third largest employer.
99
“WE CAN CREATE A VIRTUOUS CYCLE”99
Obama has been openly hostile to the pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce since early in his term.
100
Finally, presumably tired of being walked on, the Chamber rejected a last-minute request from White House adviser Valerie Jarrett to speak at a “Jobs for America Summit” in July 2010.
101
The administration, it should be noted, had deliberately excluded the Chamber from its jobs summit at the end of 2009—a meeting that was a mere photo-op, and which excluded many free market advocates besides the Chamber.
100
Finally, presumably tired of being walked on, the Chamber rejected a last-minute request from White House adviser Valerie Jarrett to speak at a “Jobs for America Summit” in July 2010.
101
The administration, it should be noted, had deliberately excluded the Chamber from its jobs summit at the end of 2009—a meeting that was a mere photo-op, and which excluded many free market advocates besides the Chamber.
In February 2011, in a supposed overture to the Chamber, Obama couldn’t help lecturing them, and railing against the free market again, about the heartlessness of its invisible hand. In a speech to the Chamber, he paraphrased John F. Kennedy, urging business leaders “to ask yourselves what you can do for America. Ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy, and to invest in this nation.”
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
10.56Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
Other books
Red Helmet by Homer Hickam
The Chosen by Jeremy Laszlo
Hellhound: Prince of Fire by Volley, Rue
The Pendragon Legend by Antal Szerb
Home Ice by Rachelle Vaughn
The Time Heiress by Georgina Young- Ellis
After Summer by Hailey Abbott
For Cam (Chicago Syndicate Book 4) by Naomi, Soraya
Retrato en sangre by John Katzenbach
