Gee. A central theme of Republican economics is bogus? Whodda thunk?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Want to help the economy and create jobs? Well, roll back those government regulations! It's a talking point trumpeted by nearly every Republican politician. But would less regulation really spur hiring?
The story goes like this: Thanks to the Obama administration, a wave of new government regulations are strangling business to the detriment of hiring and economic growth.
But in an economy with serious structural problems, a crippled housing marketand slack demand, is government regulation really holding back the labor market?
Not so much, according to government data and surveys of business owners and economists.
Only a small percentage of employers report regulation as a reason for laying off workers.
Not that this is earthshakingly new: businesses have been saying it for a while now. To be sure, not all of them. But it's sort of self-evident that ground rules provide stability. For example, knowing your food, your consumer products, are likely to be safe means people buy without fear. That's good for business. Same with not being, oh, dead, from, oh, arsenic.
Having worked as a health-care "provider" (love that term) I can say without doubt that there are rules that are non-productive; and presidents in modern times have all attempted to weed them out. Not entirely successfully.
But teabaggRs, as usual, have simple answers for complex problems: eliminate all rules; especially those created in the Obama administration. Get rid of the EPA, the consumer protection agencies. Why? Surely not because it's good for actual people. Who then, one asks.