Debate Now The Question: Too Much Federal Interference with Commerce and Industry?

[BlackSand]

And back to this. When OSHA went into effect in 1971, the government reported a significant drop in worker accident and deaths that became almost immediatley obvious in the following years. But I wonder if that was all because of OSHA? Or was it because of private insurance companies doing safety inspections and basing their premiums for liability and work comp on the risk?

On this one I do believe it is appropriate to have laws that prohibit companies from exposing people to hazardous substances or conditions that they have no way of knowing about or avoiding. But how far do you take this?

And why should the federal government be the regulatory authority and not the states themselves?

I have mixed feelings about most of the other topics cited in the OP ... But this one is hands down a decent move by the government.

The difference OSHA has made is extremely measurable ... And in a lot of cases it can be measured in lives.
Introduction of common good manufacturing practices, standards for acceptable PPE, and requirements for storing or handling hazardous materials is just plain smart.

The issue of whether or not it should have been handled by the states is not as important as the fact it is working at achieving the defined goal.
Of course there are institutions that don't properly enforce the applicable implementation ... But they will be prosecuted if a violation occurs and results in an injury.

Moreover ... The restrictions placed by OSHA are far more reasonable than most government restrictions in my opinion.
They are cumbersome at times ... But they affect the lives and wellbeing of workers everyday.
At a point my career I audited manufacturing facilities in regards to their trademarking privileges ... And was exposed to numerous hazardous conditions.
I cannot count the number of times I have seen the proper PPE and OSHA requirements turn what would have been a disaster into a manageable incident.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

And back to this. When OSHA went into effect in 1971, the government reported a significant drop in worker accident and deaths that became almost immediatley obvious in the following years. But I wonder if that was all because of OSHA? Or was it because of private insurance companies doing safety inspections and basing their premiums for liability and work comp on the risk?

On this one I do believe it is appropriate to have laws that prohibit companies from exposing people to hazardous substances or conditions that they have no way of knowing about or avoiding. But how far do you take this?

And why should the federal government be the regulatory authority and not the states themselves?

I have mixed feelings about most of the other topics cited in the OP ... But this one is hands down a decent move by the government.

The difference OSHA has made is extremely measurable ... And in a lot of cases it can be measured in lives.
Introduction of common good manufacturing practices, standards for acceptable PPE, and requirements for storing or handling hazardous materials is just plain smart.

The issue of whether or not it should have been handled by the states is not as important as the fact it is working at achieving the defined goal.
Of course there are institutions that don't properly enforce the applicable implementation ... But they will be prosecuted if a violation occurs and results in an injury.

Moreover ... The restrictions placed by OSHA are far more reasonable than most government restrictions in my opinion.
They are cumbersome at times ... But they affect the lives and wellbeing of workers everyday.
At a point my career I audited manufacturing facilities in regards to their trademarking privileges ... And was exposed to numerous hazardous conditions.
I cannot count the number of times I have seen the proper PPE and OSHA requirements turn what would have been a disaster into a manageable incident.
.

I too think many of the OSHA regulations are reasonable and necessary, but I wonder if they might have been managed as effectively and far more economically at the state level? An even minor violation of OSHA rules can open a business owner up to a massive lawsuit if there is an injury. In most cases it is the employee's choice to violate the regulations and not anything the business owner did. And yes, the business owner is liable and responsible for what goes on in his business, but. . . .

Out here in fly over country, you don't get very many OSHA inspectors so compliance with the rules and regs gets pretty lax sometimes. What keeps things safe for folks is not OSHA but the insurance companies. My last job was running my own business providing services for mostly insurance companies and one of the services we provided was safety inspections.

It wasn't OSHA that provided most of the safety but us inspectors who advised the business owner the table saw needed a guard, the highly flammable stuff needed to be in a metal cabinet, the wiring was inadquate and the circuit breaker box was hot, etc. etc. etc. And rather than have their liability and work comp and business owner's rates jacked up, the owners were glad to know of these things so the hazards could be eliminated or minimized.

I'll confess that many of our requirements did use OSHA wording though.

The tough part is balancing the real benefit against the loss of liberty, efficiency, and effectiveness when the government exercises such tight control over how commerce and industry does business.

 

[Foxfyre]

"The Question: Too Much Federal Interference with Commerce and Industry?"

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary and proper regulatory measures.

The appropriateness of regulatory policy is determined on a case by case basis, predicated on facts, evidence, and objective documentation.

It is a fact, for example, that there are businesses that will endanger worker safety to maximize profit, or pollute the environment to maximize profit, or sell unsafe goods and services to consumers to maximize profit.

This necessary and proper regulatory policy manifest as a consequence of businesses' misconduct, and does not constitute 'interference' on the part of the Federal government, where it's naïve and foolish to assume businesses can 'self-regulate,' or that the markets can provide the necessary 'regulatory oversight.'

Sorry. I didn't see this post until I was closing down for the night. I have to get to bed, but I would like to discuss this in the morning.

I have agreed that it is appropriate for the federal government to regulate issues of pollution and other dangers when the issue is water, soil, and air shared by more than one state and/or potentially dangerous products transported across our borders or across state lines.

But why would you trust the federal government to regulate how a business does business more than you would trust the state to regulate that business if it needs regulation? And how much regulation would you consider necessary?

And back to this. When OSHA went into effect in 1971, the government reported a significant drop in worker accident and deaths that became almost immediatley obvious in the following years. But I wonder if that was all because of OSHA? Or was it because of private insurance companies doing safety inspections and basing their premiums for liability and work comp on the risk?

On this one I do believe it is appropriate to have laws that prohibit companies from exposing people to hazardous substances or conditions that they have no way of knowing about or avoiding. But how far do you take this?

And why should the federal government be the regulatory authority and not the states themselves?

Some jobs inherently include exposure to hazardous substances. Better that companies make their workers aware of the risks and provide them appropriate means of protecting themselves. Unfortunately, even if a company does both of those things, how do you force the workers to comply. Case in point, I work with people who have to handle human waste. They receive training and appropriate PPE (Personal protective equipment). Very few of them use those tools to protect themselves from exposure to waste-borne pathogens. It's just too inconvenient.
OSHA might have a legitimate role in publishing appropriate information for the companies and personnel to use to protect themselves.

That's my thought too. I can see a real, even necessary role for the central government to compile the data and statistics, and develop solid recommendations for how hazards can be reduced and what rules should be enforced. But in my gut, I think that's where the federal government's involvement should end. It should provide the information to the states with recommendations and let the states take it from there.

 

[BlackSand]

I too think many of the OSHA regulations are reasonable and necessary, but I wonder if they might have been managed as effectively and far more economically at the state level? An even minor violation of OSHA rules can open a business owner up to a massive lawsuit if there is an injury and in most cases it is the employee's choice to violate the regulations and not anything the business owner did. And yes, the business owner is liable and responsible for what goes on in his business, but. . . .

Out here in fly over country, you don't get very many OSHA inspectors so compliance with the rules and regs gets pretty lax sometimes. What keeps things safe for folks is not OSHA but the insurance companies. My last job was running my own business providing services for mostly insurance companies and one of the services we provided was safety inspections.

It wasn't OSHA that provided most of the safety but us inspectors who advised the business owner the table saw needed a guard, the highly flammable stuff needed to be in a metal cabinet, the wiring was inadquate and the circuit breaker box was hot, etc. etc. etc. And rather than have their liability and work comp and business owner's rates jacked up, the owners were glad to know of these things so the hazards could be eliminated or minimized.

I'll confess that many of our requirements did use OSHA wording though.

The tough part is balancing the real benefit against the loss of liberty, efficiency, and effectiveness when the government exercises such tight control over how commerce and industry does business.

I think your latter comments touch on something that has been even more beneficial coming out of OSHA.
It kind of ties in with the "states" issue as well.

The largest benefit I have seen come from OSHA requirements is an overall change in the "legal" speak associated with production and employee safety.

It was explained to me by a fairly "colorful" character that was a plant manger at a manufacturing facility when I asked him about OSHA requirements over lunch. He said the best way he could put it was the change in the corporate attitude towards prioritizing. He indicated that for decades the mantra had been "Production, Production, Production" ... In that order. He then said that with one fatal swoop his corporate legal priority chain was changed to "Safety, Quality, Production" ... In that order, no questions entertained by corporate senior management.

He then indicated that the key aspect that made the transition possible and enforceable was the fact that senior corporate management was "buying in" to the premise it was necessary. Since the corporate headquarters were not in the same state ... And they had manufacturing facilities in six separate states ... It would have been negligible to assert that certain heath and safety requirements could vary from one state to another and be equally important in protecting the welfare of the employee.

OSHA also set benchmarks for employee safety that have made their way into International Standards (ISO and whatnot) ... And I think the overall standardization of the process makes it more enforceable and eliminates the possibility that liability claims could be made if incidents occurring across state lines within single corporations had varying requirements.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

You make an excellent argument Black Sand. I'm still struggling whether yours is better than mine, but I'll give it some thought after a hot bath and an evening snack.

 

[Missourian]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks for a comprehensive and well thought out post Missourian.

To address your question I highlighted in orange (or whatever color that is), Social Security was to be a barely noticeable payroll deduction to not provide a retirement income for the elderly but just to help a bit--supplement old age pensions. But it has incrementally been expanded to include more and more people for more and more reasons so that now you go to any regional Social Security office and you'll find more young, working age folks filling the waiting area than you will see old folks. And the program has also incrementally increased in costs and demands upon the working people so that it has become this enormous, unmangageable, bureaucratic monstrosity that absorbs more and more of the people's resources and returns far less of those resources than what the people would have if they invested that money themselves. And it is going broke.

The last figures I saw were that there are 1.75 working people in the USA for every social security recipient. And as the baby boomers retire, that ratio is going to shrink.

We need to start now to remove this program from the federal government and return it to the states where it belonged in the first place. That will have to be done very carefully and incrementally so that we do not break trust with the millions of the elderly we have made totally dependent on social security, as meager as it is.

What do we replace it with? I refer you to my thread in this same forum on putting out fires. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Let the states and the people who live there figure out the best course of action. And I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something better than what the federal government has done.

This also applies to your closing paragraph highlighted in blue. A moral society does take care of the most helpless among us. But IMO the federal government is almost certainly the most ineffective, inefficient, expensive, and harbinger of unintended negative consequences to do that.

 

[BlackSand]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Really god job explaining your position and a lot of good points.
The only thing that stuck out to me was this ... "And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves."

If we are going to use the idea our Judeo-Christian beliefs are the reason we take care of everyone and establish government programs that intrude on our freedoms ... Then it would be a pretty good idea if people stopped trying to kick the Judeo-Christians in this country to curb ... You cannot have it both ways.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Really god job explaining your position and a lot of good points.
The only thing that stuck out to me was this ... "And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves."

If we are going to use the idea our Judeo-Christian beliefs are the reason we take care of everyone and establish government programs that intrude on our freedoms ... Then it would be a pretty good idea if people stopped trying to kick the Judeo-Christians in this country to curb ... You cannot have it both ways.

Of course our Founders who mostly held strong Judeo-Christian ethics themselves were judiciously determined to strictly keep hands off any form of benevolence, charity, or benefits dispensed by the federal government and hands off the JudeoChristians themselves (as well as all others in such matters.) The people of the states and local communities were unhindered in doing anything in that regard that they mutually chose to do.

Think how much better off we would be if we had just stuck to that concept.

One of the most absurd things I think government does is to take in taxes much that people earn, swallow up a huge percentage of those taxes to feed the enormous bloated bureaucracy that makes up the federal government, return whatever is left over to the states. And even there the states often siphon off more of the money to feed their own bureaucracies so that there is relatively little left for those who it was intended for in the first place.

I can think of much more efficient ways to do things.

And too often federal regulation on commerce and industry is just as counter productive to get the best results for whatever was intended.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

 

[Missourian]

Laws are enacted because generally both folks, companies and corporations can't be trusted to do the responsible thing. And though many of us disagree with the intrusive nature of government, what is the alternative? Get rid of social security...then what? People don't save money for retirement on their own and when they can no longer work, we let the die?

The minimum wages and labor rules and osha was instated because managers were cutting corners, screwing workers, and there was no recourse for the workers.

The EPA arose due to pollution and dumping by people more interested in making money than protecting the environment.

ADA, had companies handled the concerns of the disabled on their own, there would have been no need for a law to mandate it.

This is just human nature, and one of the major drawbacks of capitalism. Capitalist are rewarded by screwing their fellow man, ignoring the disabled, damaging the environment...etc...etc...

And our Judeo-Christian ethics require us to care for those who, through misfortune or bad luck, cannot care for themselves.

Those same ethics also won't allow folks to reap what they sow. We aren't going to allow the Cricket to starve to death, even when that is the very reward he so richly deserves.

That means constructing a medicare system, a welfare system and a system that forces the Crickets to save something for the cold months after the working days are over.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks for a comprehensive and well thought out post Missourian.

To address your question I highlighted in orange (or whatever color that is), Social Security was to be a barely noticeable payroll deduction to not provide a retirement income for the elderly but just to help a bit--supplement old age pensions. But it has incrementally been expanded to include more and more people for more and more reasons so that now you go to any regional Social Security office and you'll find more young, working age folks filling the waiting area than you will see old folks. And the program has also incrementally increased in costs and demands upon the working people so that it has become this enormous, unmangageable, bureaucratic monstrosity that absorbs more and more of the people's resources and returns far less of those resources than what the people would have if they invested that money themselves. And it is going broke.

The last figures I saw were that there are 1.75 working people in the USA for every social security recipient. And as the baby boomers retire, that ratio is going to shrink.

We need to start now to remove this program from the federal government and return it to the states where it belonged in the first place. That will have to be done very carefully and incrementally so that we do not break trust with the millions of the elderly we have made totally dependent on social security, as meager as it is.

What do we replace it with? I refer you to my thread in this same forum on putting out fires. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Let the states and the people who live there figure out the best course of action. And I'm pretty sure they'll come up with something better than what the federal government has done.

This also applies to your closing paragraph highlighted in blue. A moral society does take care of the most helpless among us. But IMO the federal government is almost certainly the most ineffective, inefficient, expensive, and harbinger of unintended negative consequences to do that.

Much of your post I absolutely agree with, Foxfyre, which leads me to an aside that goes back to my original post...I'll address that at the end of this post, to not get off topic.

BUT, allow me to play Devil's Advocate with the first two thoughts that came to mind after reading your thoughts.

What if a citizen lived in 9 states during their working years, then retired to Florida, where they had never lived previously. A state like Florida would go broke, while New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts would collect significantly more than they paid out.

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Seeing as these citizens would be a drain on the state budget, would we not see the same kind of...let's call it "one-downmenship"...reducing benefits to make a state like California look much more inviting?

While I'm not a fan of Centralized Government, it seems like the alternative is chocked full of pitfalls and unintended consequences.

Now back to the aside...another of those "human nature, we get the laws and intrusion we deserve because folks can't be trusted to act responsibly", let's have a look at the 17th Amendment. State legislators had the opportunity to have the States interests safeguarded via the appointment of U.S. Senators by State Legislatures...but by forsaking the public trust through greed and corruption, they surrendered that that all important check/balance over federal consolidation of power over the states.

 

[RKMBrown]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

Let's go by percentage of population in the workplace. Or how about homeownership by middle class income earning families. Or how about average payroll in the private sector.

 

[BlackSand]

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Again ... A lot of good points in the whole post ... But a question about this part.

Why exactly do you blame Businesses (or at least chastise them for "milking the system") when it is the incompetent state and local government officials that write the agreements applicable to the tax breaks?

I mean it is easy enough to add restrictions and penalties as far as relocation and whatnot into the agreement ... Or at least terms that ensure minimum occupancy.
There is no difference in a company being greedy for money and government being greedy for the jobs and economic stimulus a corporation brings.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

Let's go by percentage of population in the workplace. Or how about homeownership by middle class income earning families. Or how about average payroll in the private sector.

In what way are those stats relevant?

 

[Missourian]

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Again ... A lot of good points in the whole post ... But a question about this part.

Why exactly do you blame Businesses (or at least chastise them for "milking the system") when it is the incompetent state and local government officials that write the agreements applicable to the tax breaks?

I mean it is easy enough to add restrictions and penalties as far as relocation and whatnot into the agreement ... Or at least terms that ensure minimum occupancy.
There is no difference in a company being greedy for money and government being greedy for the jobs and economic stimulus a corporation brings.

.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning all businesses or all government leaders.

Some business leaders and politicians, including the Governor have called for a moratorium on these grants and tax incentive programs.

Economic border war spurs Missouri lawmakers to action The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star


Lawmakers and Businesses React to Nixon s Border War Speech KOMU.com Columbia MO ​

But many businesses do milk the system. Those businesses and government are equally culpable...the city and state government for the idiocy of giving the businesses basically a free pass on all tax revenue for the companies to move a few miles across a border for the sole purpose of padding economic growth statistic and some employee paid income tax instead of creating new jobs... and the businesses for taking advantage of the tax breaks while not truly creating new jobs, which was the intention of the programs in the first place...which brings it round full circle back to "if businesses and individuals would do the right thing of their own initiative, more regulation and government intrusion would not be necessary".

 

[BlackSand]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning all businesses or all government leaders.

Some business leaders and politicians, including the Governor have called for a moratorium on these grants and tax incentive programs.

Economic border war spurs Missouri lawmakers to action The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star


Lawmakers and Businesses React to Nixon s Border War Speech KOMU.com Columbia MO ​

But many businesses do milk the system. Those businesses and government are equally culpable...the city and state government for the idiocy of giving the businesses basically a free pass on all tax revenue for the companies to move a few miles across a border for the sole purpose of padding economic growth statistic and some employee paid income tax instead of creating new jobs... and the businesses for taking advantage of the tax breaks while not truly creating new jobs, which was the intention of the programs in the first place...which brings it round full circle back to "if businesses and individuals would do the right thing of their own initiative, more regulation and government intrusion would not be necessary".

I understand and agree with what you are saying.

It hits a little closer to home with me because I have seen two communities attempt the same process ... One with success and the other in failure.
The only difference was the how the representatives on the government side managed to split the risk with the businesses.

In both cases the tax breaks were essential in bringing in the new business ... But in the successful case the appropriate provisions regarding penalties were added.
If the corporation simply left after the grace period (they agreed to stay a minimum of 10 years after) ... They would owe a good portion of the taxes they were allowed to forego in the initial agreement.

In that case the corporation spent a good deal of their savings on upgrading the existing facilities and remanning for additional consumer lines.
The increased workforce brought in additional businesses (diners, an auto dealership, housing and whatnot).
Tax revenues increased in the community as a result of increased property values and added consumer activity.

The other community failed because the agreement was poorly managed ... And the business took advantage of the tax break and then split after the grace period.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

All valid questions and if you wanted to provide the numbers to answer them, I would be interested in what you come up with. My own focus is mostly in the area of principle and consequence.

One industry I have been made aware of by virtue of a close relative who is a senior petroleum engineer is oil refining. The overwhelming THOUSANDS of federal regulations involving an oil refinery makes building new ones or even expanding older ones economically unfeasible. As a result we can be awash in crude oil but our refining capacity is at maximum and is expanding almost not at all to accomodate a rapidly growing population.

Add to that all the federal regulations re how gasoline must be forumlated, additives, et al, and the refineries have to regularly shut down operations to retool as the seasons change, etc., all that translates to inefficiencies and much higher prices for all of us at the pump.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Again ... A lot of good points in the whole post ... But a question about this part.

Why exactly do you blame Businesses (or at least chastise them for "milking the system") when it is the incompetent state and local government officials that write the agreements applicable to the tax breaks?

I mean it is easy enough to add restrictions and penalties as far as relocation and whatnot into the agreement ... Or at least terms that ensure minimum occupancy.
There is no difference in a company being greedy for money and government being greedy for the jobs and economic stimulus a corporation brings.

.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning all businesses or all government leaders.

Some business leaders and politicians, including the Governor have called for a moratorium on these grants and tax incentive programs.

Economic border war spurs Missouri lawmakers to action The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star


Lawmakers and Businesses React to Nixon s Border War Speech KOMU.com Columbia MO ​

But many businesses do milk the system. Those businesses and government are equally culpable...the city and state government for the idiocy of giving the businesses basically a free pass on all tax revenue for the companies to move a few miles across a border for the sole purpose of padding economic growth statistic and some employee paid income tax instead of creating new jobs... and the businesses for taking advantage of the tax breaks while not truly creating new jobs, which was the intention of the programs in the first place...which brings it round full circle back to "if businesses and individuals would do the right thing of their own initiative, more regulation and government intrusion would not be necessary".

But how can you have rights to your own assets/property that you legally and ethically acquired if the federal government can tell you where you have to do business and can prohibit you from locating in an area that best serves your own interests? Some have to do that to remain competitive.

It makes far more sense to me for the government to remove the most onerous and unnecessary rules and regulations for doing business to encourage more business to start up, expand, and locate in America in places that need those jobs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What metric are we to use to determine if the federal government has placed too many restrictions on commerce?

If we are going to go with how we feel.....we'll never reach a consensus.

How about examining the numbers?

Is there a shortage of business startups due to over regulation?
Has there been a drop in corporate revenues as a result of government overreach?
Are record numbers of businesses closing doors as a direct result of some interventionist policy of the federal government?

If yes to any....let's go over the numbers.

All valid questions and if you wanted to provide the numbers to answer them, I would be interested in what you come up with. My own focus is mostly in the area of principle and consequence.

One industry I have been made aware of by virtue of a close relative who is a senior petroleum engineer is oil refining. The overwhelming THOUSANDS of federal regulations involving an oil refinery makes building new ones or even expanding older ones economically unfeasible. As a result we can be awash in crude oil but our refining capacity is at maximum and is expanding almost not at all to accomodate a rapidly growing population.

Add to that all the federal regulations re how gasoline must be forumlated, additives, et al, and the refineries have to regularly shut down operations to retool as the seasons change, etc., all that translates to inefficiencies and much higher prices for all of us at the pump.

Can you support the claims that you just made? Has there been documented cases of oil companies wanting to build new refineries or expand old ones......but declined doing so due to regulations? If so, which regulations in particular?

There haven't been any new refineries built since the 1970's. Is that due to increased regulations? It isn't that simple.

There has been substantial expansion of refining capacity over the past several years.

No New Oil Refineries Since the 1970s But Capacity Has Grown - US News

U.S. Oil-Refineries Bulk Up - WSJ

If regulations strangling the expansion of oil refining capacity....someone needs to tell the refining companies.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Also, here in Missouri, there is a constant battle with Kansas and Illinois, undercutting one another to lure businesses across the border in Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, East St Louis, with the promise of tax exemptions and credits. The businesses milk the system over and over again, bouncing from Kansas City, KS to Kansas City, MO and then back again.

Again ... A lot of good points in the whole post ... But a question about this part.

Why exactly do you blame Businesses (or at least chastise them for "milking the system") when it is the incompetent state and local government officials that write the agreements applicable to the tax breaks?

I mean it is easy enough to add restrictions and penalties as far as relocation and whatnot into the agreement ... Or at least terms that ensure minimum occupancy.
There is no difference in a company being greedy for money and government being greedy for the jobs and economic stimulus a corporation brings.

.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning all businesses or all government leaders.

Some business leaders and politicians, including the Governor have called for a moratorium on these grants and tax incentive programs.

Economic border war spurs Missouri lawmakers to action The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star


Lawmakers and Businesses React to Nixon s Border War Speech KOMU.com Columbia MO ​

But many businesses do milk the system. Those businesses and government are equally culpable...the city and state government for the idiocy of giving the businesses basically a free pass on all tax revenue for the companies to move a few miles across a border for the sole purpose of padding economic growth statistic and some employee paid income tax instead of creating new jobs... and the businesses for taking advantage of the tax breaks while not truly creating new jobs, which was the intention of the programs in the first place...which brings it round full circle back to "if businesses and individuals would do the right thing of their own initiative, more regulation and government intrusion would not be necessary".

But how can you have rights to your own assets/property that you legally and ethically acquired if the federal government can tell you where you have to do business and can prohibit you from locating in an area that best serves your own interests? Some have to do that to remain competitive.

It makes far more sense to me for the government to remove the most onerous and unnecessary rules and regulations for doing business to encourage more business to start up, expand, and locate in America in places that need those jobs.

Which ones?