“As 2016 presidential candidates flocked to spend Independence Day in early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton found herself defending her record on policy and the size of crowds at her events.”
This just in from FoxNews.com:
“The Obama administration pushed through $181.5 billion in regulations last year, according to a new report from a conservative think tank that claimed the rules will lead to higher energy bills, more expensive consumer goods and fewer jobs.
The new rules mostly focus on clean energy and vehicle regulations, said the American Action Forum, which issued the report Monday. The state that was hit the hardest by new regulations was California, which was slapped with $7.9 billion in new rules, followed by Texas ($6.5 billion) and Ohio ($3.4 billion).
“‘What do these huge sums mean for individuals? Higher energy prices, pricier household goods, a more expensive mortgage, and the promise of yet another year of unrelenting regulatory growth,'” concludes the report, which was authored by Sam Batkins, the group’s director of regulatory policy. ‘No one can accuse the president of abandoning his promises on regulation in 2014.'”
Putting regulations on business is awful, isn’t it? Sure sounds that way. But wait, let’s take a closer look at this news report.
By Robert A. Vella
Since the 2008 financial crisis, which has hurt middle class prosperity so profoundly, Wall Street has been slowly coming to the conclusion that wealth and income inequality is retarding economic growth and recovery from the Great Recession. Most objectively-minded economists not only realized this specific result years ago, but have been studying the macroeconomic phenomenon of aggregate demand for many decades. Simply put, the larger economy suffers when the bulk of ordinary workers and consumers have reduced buying potential.
New analysis from the rating agency Standard & Poor’s is giving Wall Street further information on this serious problem:
Economic disparities appear to be reaching extremes that “need to be watched because they’re damaging to growth,” said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at S&P.
The rising concentration of income among the top 1 percent of earners has contributed to S&P’s cutting its growth estimates for…
View original post 441 more words