Small business owners say it isn't regulations that's bad

What regulations are holding back job creation?  Don’t you wonder what regulations are preventing businesses from hiring people? 

All the Republican candidates are talking about regulations.  They say that the reason businesses aren’t hiring people is because of regulations.

With all this talk, changing regulations must be a top priority for businesses in America.  John Arensmeyer, founder and CEO of Small Business Majority says it isn’t so.

“Despite the heated rhetoric, regulations simply aren’t small businesses’ top concern,” Arensmeyer said on the release of a survey of small business owners.  "Small businesses can be the jobs engine we need to jumpstart the economy, but not if legislators are focusing on something that isn't their top problem. Policymakers should listen to what real small businesses are saying and act accordingly."

The survey of small business owners across the country was sponsored by Arensmeyer’s group, Main Street Alliance and The American Sustainable Business Council.  The three groups are focused on small business in America.

In the survey, only 14% thought that regulations were in the way of their overall operations.  Most believe that without fair regulations creating a level playing field, small business won’t be able to compete with large corporations.

“From our perspective, the effort to kill regulations is big business’ way of rigging the game in their favor,” said Frank Knapp, Jr., Vice Chair of the American Sustainable Business Council and president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

What is the number one job killer according to small businesses?  24% said moving jobs overseas.  Regulations are fifth on the list with only 10% saying regulations stopped them from creating jobs.

Here are a few more things that small businesses are concerned about:

78% believe that to protect small businesses there needs to be standards.

93% said they can live with fair regulations

80% supported product safety standards and disclosure and regulation of toxic materials.

The business people on the front lines that are struggling the most in this recession are saying that regulations are not the biggest problem.  So, as voters, let’s ask politicians to talk about what really matters, getting people back to work.

-----

Where is the outrage for religious freedom?

It was announced about a week ago that a Quran was burned at a United States military base.  Reports vary why it was burned.  Some reports say it was a mistake.  Others have said because it had militant notes in it.  While this may be an overused phrase, I have to wonder – where is the outrage about respecting religion?

The Republican presidential candidates where so upset when President Obama made it a requirement that churches and other religious organizations had to provide health care coverage for birth control.  Obama did this, even though, most of the religious organizations objected to the requirement because it was against their religious beliefs.  Romney, Santorum and others (who are those other guys?) charged that Obama was waging war on religion.

In an earlier Responsible Community blog, it was noted that many times in the history of the United States, we have curtailed a religious right to uphold a legitimate need of the community.  The Old Order Amish have to pay social security tax.  The Mormon’s can’t marry more than one wife at a time.  Even Native Americans can’t use peyote in their religious ceremonies and still expect to receive unemployment compensation if they are fired from their job because of its use. 

There was no outrage for any of those situations. 

Now, all these years after 9-11, we should have learned that Muslims don’t believe in destroying their holy book.  (We have learned it but for some reason we just don’t think it important.)  Military leaders at the base decided to burn the Quran despite this knowledge.  The book could have been shipped somewhere for safe keeping.  It could have been turned over to friendly groups.  There are a lot of things that they could have done that didn’t violate Islam. But, they didn’t.

So, where is the outrage for this religious belief? 

The Islamic groups that a violently protesting the burning are wrong.  There is no reason that anyone should be harmed or property lost because at the very least, the United States military made a mistake.  But, there is no reason that the Islamic groups and the presidential hopefuls should not be peacefully voicing their strong opposition to this action. 

If everyone truly believes in the Freedom of Religion, then they should.  All it does is show the hypocrisy of the presidential hopefuls (including Obama). 

-----

The church should provide full health care coverage, not just what they want

The current fight about President Barack Obama requiring religious organizations to provide birth control medication in their health care plan is showing a lot of irrational campaign rhetoric and hypocrisy.

President Obama signed an executive order just a little more than a week ago requiring all companies to provide birth control medication in their health plans.  The reasoning of the president was that it would provide women with the widest range of options.  That is a justifiable reason for the requirement.  But, it ran into opposition from religious organizations, especially from the Catholic Church, and all of the presidential candidates from the Republican Party.  The Catholic Church believes that its adherents should not use birth control medication or have an abortion.  (Many birth control pills can be used as a morning after drug for an abortion.)  Both the church and the presidential hopefuls framed their argument as infringement of the freedom of religion. 

The president has since backed down from the original executive order and apparently thinks he has found a compromise that will satisfy all parties.  But, it doesn’t satisfy anyone.  He should have stood up to the opposition by presenting case law and supporting his own reasoning on the issue. 

Obama was wrong for caving on the issue.

The Responsible Community’s blog last week supported President Obama’s original requirement.  The rights that we did not forfeit to the community and that are guaranteed in the Constitution are individual rights, not collective rights.  It is the individual that must make the decision about using birth control and that her rights are paramount to the institution.  If the institution was able to withhold legitimate products or services from the individual it would deny rights to the individual the Constitution guarantees.  In practice, it would place more power in the hands of the institution (in this case the church, but could be any corporation) and would mean the institution knows better than the individual what is good for them. 

Since the order by the President and the blog supporting it, much has come to light with just a small amount of research.  The case law that the research brought to light supports Obama’s original decision and shows the irrationality of the opposition.  Much of the case law that supports Obama comes from an unlikely source.  Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative Supreme Court Justice, uses many court decisions to support his own opinion on a case that is just a few years old.

In a 1990 case, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court is asked if a defendant, fired from his job for the use of peyote, can be denied unemployment benefits.  The defendants state that they took the drug for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of the Native American Church, which both of them are members.  Since it was during a religious ceremony and part of a recognized religion, by the state and the federal government, the defendants believe the act should be protected religious action and unemployment benefits provided.  Scalia disagreed. 

The court ruled, with a majority opinion delivered by Scalia, sense the use of the drug was both within the legitimate conduct of the State of Oregon to prohibit and that the law was not directed to any religion, there could be no exemption from the law based on religious practice.  Obama’s requirement that all organizations provide birth control to all employees was not directed at any one religion.  The President was well with the rights of the office to make the requirement.

To support Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia sites past case law in support of his decisions. First, he discusses a Supreme Court decision from 1878, Reynolds v. United States.  A Mormon living in Territory of Utah was charged with bigamy under the Territory of Utah’s law on marriage.  The man argued that since he was a Mormon, he was required to marry more than one wife.  The court ruled that the law was not directed (at least in its text) at any one religion and that the territory had the right under the Constitution to make and enforce such a law.  

The second case Scalia uses to support the court’s decision is United States v. Lee in 1982.  Lee is an Old Order Amish carpenter that hired people to help him with his work.  The Old Order Amish, according to the court case, don’t believe in supporting governmental systems like Social Security.  During the period of time that Lee employed people, he didn’t pay the social security tax of the individuals or the employer’s share.  The IRS finally caught up with him and ordered him to pay the tax.

The Supreme Court ruled, as sited by Scalia in support of his opinion, that:

“While there is a conflict between the Amish faith and the obligations imposed by the social security system, not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.  The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.” 

Three things are spot on in the above.  First, no right is absolute and this includes religion.  If the community has a compelling reason to restrict a right, it may do so.  In the case of Obama’s requirement, it is the community protecting the rights of individuals.

The second issue is equity.  It is inconsistent with the reasoning behind in the Fourteenth amendment to restrict the rights of some while protecting the rights of others. If the rights of the Mormons or the Amish can be restricted by a compelling community interest, then so can the rights of the Catholic Church.

Finally, there are about 1,000 recognized religious organizations in the United States.  If every one of them was allowed to decide what laws they should follow, there would be chaos in the community.  It would also mean that all a corporation of any kind would have to do is declare that they are a religious organization and they would be exempt from a large section of the Unites states code. 

The presidential hopefuls on the right are being hypocritical.  Why aren’t the candidates coming to the support of individuals that are members of the Mormon Church, the Amish or Muslims?   People of those religions have plenty of complaints about the infringement of their religious rights.  If this is a nation of freedoms, including the freedom of religion, then one religion can’t be given greater rights in the community than any other. 

Certainly, not more than an individual woman’s right to choose.

-----

Say no to the payroll tax cuts

The payroll tax cut is coming up again. If you remember, at the end of the last year an agreement was reached to push the extension of the tax cuts for the wage earner 60 days down the road. It was hoped that at that time, which by the way is now, both sides of the aisle and the president would be in a more cooperative mood. But, it appears that they still aren’t ready to make a deal.

But, for me, there should be no deal.

If you don’t know, you should, the few extra dollars in you paycheck are coming at a high cost. The payroll tax cut is really a reduction in the Social Security tax that each of us pay. That means for as long as the tax cut is in place, Social Security is getting less money. Less money for a fund that needs every cent it can get right now to stay balanced. (Some may say that the fund is broke. While I don’t believe it, that is for economists, not this blog. But, if we don’t fund it like it should be, it will be broke and we don’t need an economist to tell us that.)

Also, at the same time all of this is going on, we are asking those that make more money than 99% of us to pay more taxes to help out. I think it is a good idea. We have a budget issue, we have a down economy and we need to help those that are in need get through this. We can’t do it if we are afraid to ask those that can help for little more.

Why is it that we that are earning wages are asking for a tax cut when we are asking others to pay more in taxes? It shouldn’t be that way because we are all in this together. To ask one side to help and not expect it from ourselves is, well, selfish.

With that said, I say we should let the payroll tax cut expire for wage earners. Take the few dollars more to help the overall budget and keep funding Social Security. Also, let the high income tax cuts expire. We can’t keep asking others to pay more in taxes when we are giving ourselves a tax cut.

This is our community and we are all in this together. Let’s start thinking that way.

-----

Institutional rights don't trump individual rights

In a speech to supporters in Colorado, presidential candidate Mitt Romney blasted President Barack Obama over his administration’s decision to force religious organizations to provide birth control pills and other related drugs in the health plans they offer. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe that the use of birth control is moral. Other Christian organizations and churches believe the use of most birth control pills is actually abortion. The religious organizations believe that by offering the drugs in the health plan they are supporting an immoral act.

Romney says that if he was president, he would allow the exemption on religious grounds. In the speech he accused Obama of restricting religious freedom. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he tried to exempt religious institutions from providing the drugs in the health care mandate in the state. But, the legislature overruled his policy.

Romney is making the choice between an institution (that does have deep religious concerns with birth control) and the individual’s right to make those choices. His belief is that groups, in this case the Catholic Church, are equal in status with individuals. Keep in mind, Romney is the same man that said corporations are people too.

A pillar of conservatism is that the individual holds all the power and the responsibly. It is the individual’s choices that determine his responsibility. Apparently, that is true up to the point that the individual is covered under a health plan.

By allowing the Catholic Church to be exempt from offering birth control in their health plan, it limits the individual's choice and personal freedom. Just because the church provide the drugs doesn’t mean they are suggesting anyone should use them. The church can use their freedom of speech to express their concerns about birth control.

If it was allowed, it could create many other divisions, not even just in the birth control issue. Should a church have health insurance policies rewritten that restrict what clinics, hospitals and doctors can receive payments from the health plan because they offer birth control and abortion? This, even though the health of the woman may dictate that she goes to one of them?

President Obama made the right decision on the birth control issues. The individual’s right to make choices must be greater than the group’s ability to control those choices.

-----

Kindergarten funding in Michigan

The good news is, Michigan “encourages” local school districts to offer all-day kindergarten. The bad news is school districts will lose money if they do or if they don’t.

Last year, the Michigan legislature, with Governor Rick Snyder’s approval, passed a measure that will continue to fully fund kindergarten for those school districts that offer it as a full day, rather than a half day as it is now. School districts that don’t will only receive half of the state’s grant for each child that participates in half day kindergarten.

Expanding the amount of time that students are in the classroom is a great idea. They will be much better prepared for first grade and the rest of elementary school. The trouble is that school districts will lose money no matter what they do. If they opt to expand kindergarten to full day, there will be the extra expenses of more classrooms, more teachers and all the other things that go along with children in school longer. But, the districts will continue to receive only the current funding levels. If the districts don’t expand to full day, they will only receive half of the current funding, so they lose money.

The Berkley school district, as reported in local newspapers, might be an example. It will cost the district $700,000 more to add full day. But, they won’t receive any additional money to cover the costs. If they don’t and save the money, the school aid to the district will drop by a million dollars.

Kindergarten should be expanded to a full day. There is no reason to keep it at a half day. It will be a better use of the resources and better prepare the children for elementary. But, the way the legislature did it was foolish and doesn’t recognize the issues on the local level. First, the school aid budget was already chopped by about $470 on average for each child. This means districts are already fighting rising costs and lower funding. This is not a naive complaint that doesn’t realize that tax revenues are down because of the economy. But, the school aid budget had a surplus that equaled about $430 per child, the Governor borrowed money to balance the budget. This could have made a big difference to school districts.

More importantly, there is a gap between what the political rhetoric is and what we are willing to pay. If education is such a high priority in the state, (as it should be) why aren’t we willing to properly fund the budget? We have made cuts in the amount of taxes that businesses pay without seeking new sources of income to make up for the loss. Then, to balance the budget, the state takes a surplus the state has in the school aid fund to make up the difference.

Education is the second most important function of a community, just behind law enforcement. Let’s fund it properly.

-----

Immigration

It can’t be said that there are many parallels between Newt Gingrich’s political philosophy, if it can be collected into one coherent philosophy, and the structure of the Responsible Community. But, we do need to give Gingrich his due when he is right, even if not for the same reasons.

Today is Florida’s Republican primary and immigration is a big issue because of the large amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s biggest rival in the presidential primary, has developed his “self-deportation” plan that has some truth at the core. He believes that as a country, we need to somehow remove the illegal immigrants from the neighborhoods of America and return them to their home country. There, they can apply to come to America legally. He would do this by cutting off the jobs the immigrants obtain when here. This is the truth at the core of his plan; we would have much less illegal immigration if there weren’t jobs going unfilled here.

But, Romney is not likely to be willing to go up against business owners and fine them for hiring illegals. Remember, he is a pro-business candidate, having run a capital investment firm very successfully. It just can’t be seen how the pro-business, less regulation candidate is going to stop businesses who need cheap docile employees.

If Romney wants to remove the illegals from our neighborhoods, he will have to drive the padding wagon down the street, dragnet style. He will have to round them up and send them home.

Gingrich doesn’t think that is such a good idea, nor do I. Gingrich has said something like rounding up someone’s grandmother that has been here for many years to deport her is against humanity and, besides, can’t really be done. (Gingrich is right on both points. Can you image removing 10 to 20 million people from the country? Panic and chaos would be pandemic. There would be riots and armed conflict in the streets of our towns. Our courts would be filled with backlog cases for many years, if not lifetimes.)

These people are here because we needed them to fill jobs that went unfilled. While they may have taken jobs that legal immigrants could have filled, it is not as bad as it seems. Once here, they created a synergy that created more jobs. Economically, they hold entire communities together. They rent houses and apartments, buy food for their families, entertain themselves and buy shirts from JC Penny. By removing about 10 to 15 percent of the population, if it could be done, would send us into another recession. The jobs it is said the illegals took would be gone along with all the other jobs that were created from the goods and services they purchased.

That is not to suggest that we should not do a better job of keeping illegals from the country in the first place. A blog post from May 2010, End Illegal Immigration in Five Steps, outlines five steps to end illegal immigration without ten foot concrete walls around the country. Let’s make sure every person has a national identification card so we know who is legal and who isn’t, that every business knows that there will be severe consequences if they hire undocumented workers, manage our borders not control them and build the economies in the home countries. We also need to provide a path for documenting workers that aren’t currently legal instead of deporting them.

Solutions for problems like illegal immigration come from practical community based solutions not from politically motivated ideological double speak. Romney is suggesting that we get tough by cutting off the supply of jobs at the same time he says we need to get rid of regulations and help business. This is Romney’s double speak. Gingrich at least is defining the issue in practical terms.

-----