Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Tonight the Washington Post reports that dozens of lawmakers from both sides of the -- Are steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks towards projects either next to or near their own.
One congressman from Georgia even -- to -- over six million of your taxpayer dollars to refurbish a beach only a stone's throw from his island vacation home.
-- pork spending is vilified in the media and announcement both sides of the aisle.
But it seems when it comes to improving one's real estate values no cost is -- pretty.
Here not to discuss -- my freedom fighters Fox Business Network reporter and my colleagues Sandra Smith.
Teradata -- democratic strategist and James -- send you should be university professor.
Of economics and philosophy surely nobody.
Can be happy about something like -- and and the people who did this -- both sides of the.
No this is all bad absolutely it's all bad earmark process needs to be.
Overhaul completely -- the number one thing it needs to have is greater transparency.
Because at the same time dissolving egregious horrible examples that the same times.
-- there medical office of these in Alabama they earmarks to -- free medical services to child abuse victims -- therapy things like that so there are some beneficial things that happened but we need to crack the process so -- why so that people see everything.
The the other -- criticize the worse -- -- were only being critical of Republicans I'm gonna do a man called -- -- Maxima -- Because this is a great piece this morning.
The list of Republicans and Democrats who have done this can -- be trusted to regulate itself.
And look at let's look at the confidence levels of the American people in congress has set rock bottom lows of why we have confidence our lawmakers when they're choosing.
To put themselves in their constituents above out of the country.
I -- clearly what they're doing is they're benefiting themselves they're benefiting their constituents.
To disclose this this is legal judge.
But this is -- -- this does not put the country first.
In yes they're gonna argue that this is just a drop in the -- bucket as far as does finding is concerned.
It does and that.
Does anybody care about the constitutional -- congress spend money on anything it wants even -- it's not -- -- -- -- revealed well that should have been the first question is there is this constitutional but we don't care about whether it's constitutional that the mandate is that let's do what we can get away with.
-- -- -- I agree that this is bad everybody says this is bad but the question whether transparency is gonna do anything I'm gonna say no.
Because every single year of my life as far back as I can remember we had the same issue again we make these please.
Please don't do it plays into it as long as there's a mechanism in place to take money out of one set of pockets and put into another.
There will be people who use that -- the congress will -- regulate itself from the congress will never be an earmarks because the congress knows that it can stay in office.
They're bringing home the biggest piece of the pie and my right.
And on both sides aren't faulty while they're investing is -- ban in place right now there's an Shannon price because that's the congress on -- on the house side if the ban in place right now but issue is what's happening is that's an avid that the different funding sources are coming from the department.
So people aren't just spending money lobbying -- department -- -- wants to department -- -- -- -- congress so again I think that ultimately you have to have a process open and transparent so that one text people we they get in trouble if they shine a light.
If if a corporate executive.
Spent corporate assets in order to enrich himself the SEC would be all over him and they got federal prosecutors -- Private -- big dinners parties and we've seen that before it can't happen.
That's commingling company funds with personal pleasure and that's really the equivalent of what we're seeing happen here -- A new report tonight calculates exactly how having a regulatory burden has been for companies across the globe.
Yeah -- ready for this 141215.
New regulations were unveiled a one -- -- any one person was read all of them.
That comes to sixteen new regulations a day.
And thanks the president Obama's financial overhaul law twice I was expected to be even worse it seems if it had -- -- if it had its way.
Our government would regulate free enterprise out of existence what do we do about this what incentive is there.
For businesses to comply with -- -- regulations when they're so expensive and almost impossible to decipher.
You know -- -- just this close to utopia aren't we judge is just another and rule -- thousand or 101000 -- and we'll be there.
And by the way 57%.
Of those regulations where in United States through them in the land of the free you've heard people say that way.
I think what we have here is -- -- does the theory of intelligent design yeah this is like a theory of intelligent social design that the only way we can have a good Republicans and we have really Smart people.
Boss seeing everybody around and managing actually everything the people that do you on the Democrats like cool these regulations can any human being justify and defend sixty regulations -- day dear ms.
-- you know.
One half across from the garden state go giants were in your -- Wherever I'm at I had to say that the small business owner I don't always loved every regulation comes out but the reality is there's certain regulations that protect me as -- small business owner to.
Because sometimes large -- is one imprint on my rights and the rights of smaller people so we need to make sure the playing field is level so nobody can -- anybody on the sport.
Is it worse here is that worse in Europe -- he stated differently here okay -- these regulations drive businesses.
To conduct their business overseas.
You know keep in mind what you just -- about small businesses -- we have to be careful driving these small businesses right out of business.
It is not only is it costing them money to go up and fight some of these regulations that impair their ability to grow their business.
But even higher on the people just think even take care -- know what these regulations are it's gonna drive small business -- not so.
Professor artists that you teach economics and philosophy -- whatever happened to don't tread on me why do people have faith.
In government to regulate them.
Don't tread on me was after all the economic and moral principle that hand and led to the greatest the greatest amount of wealth ever produced by any country in the history of the world.
This is really about the environment in which people can take risks and -- -- -- think about the perverse incentive involved here.
Plus some perverse incentive involved here is that the small good faith honest people who want to enter the market.
They see this flurry in blizzard of regulations that is a disincentive then it protects the entrenched interest -- -- Already -- the that there is that people took the reason why we had the financial crisis in the none of us -- think that someone who makes 50000 outlets to build -- two million dollar home -- no woman agreed that but -- the banks are using forty to one leverage so requiring them to hat that I -- at all the Red -- I.
Already regulated more than any industry and any an exchange that -- -- in -- -- outside of the framework that regulation.
-- -- the giants won the Super Bowl the lady from New Jersey that's the last quarter.
Sandra Smith Jim ought to send Tara though though it's a pleasure guys thank you for joining us -- -- -- recall.
Filter by section