Cutting Rules Would Spark Economic Growth; Obama Should Block EPA from Restraining Creation of Energy Jobs

Article excerpt

Byline: Charles T. Drevna, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Although members of Congress agreed to raise our nation's debt ceiling above $14.3 trillion just in time to avoid an economic nightmare, it's certain they will continue battling over how much federal spending should be cut and how much taxes should be raised. Both sides should come together on a third way to help Uncle Sam return to fiscal health: eliminating harmful regulations that reduce tax revenues by weakening private-sector businesses, which are the key to firing up America's mighty engine of economic growth.

The beauty of this third way is that instead of forcing Congress to argue over how to divide up the pain and sacrifice of spending cuts or tax increases, it would enable Congress to share with the American people the benefits of increased federal revenue generated by a more prosperous economy.

When businesses grow, they hire more workers, buy more goods and services and give the American economy a shot in the arm. Every step of the way, this economic activity generates more tax revenue for governments at all levels without any increase in tax rates or elimination of deductions.

For example, the use of hydraulic fracturing to produce natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation has created tens of thousands of new jobs in Pennsylvania, according to studies, with additional jobs in neighboring states. All this activity is producing millions of dollars in new tax revenue.

Economic growth has always been and always will be the key to American prosperity. But instead of nurturing desperately needed private-sector growth, the Obama administration is drowning American businesses in a tidal wave of costly and sometimes conflicting regulations - and threatening to impose still more regulations and a slew of tax increases as well.

This perfect storm of additional regulations and taxes would actually subtract revenue from government by raising unemployment, holding down wages, decreasing American exports and weakening our manufacturing sector.

Too often, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal regulatory agencies fail to understand the meaning of the term cost-benefit analysis. They pursue extreme regulations that generate minimal benefit or no benefit at a terrible cost to workers, consumers, our national economy and our national security.

No reasonable person would argue against all government regulation. Regulations have achieved a great deal over the years. …