
A Way to Unshackle American Businesses and Boost the Economy
Commentary
In recent comments marking the first 100 days of his second term,
The president's commitment is good news for all of us. Federal taxes impose a significant economic burden. The average middle-income American family pays more than $10,000 in federal taxes each year. And, on top of taxes, the federal government imposes an enormous additional economic burden on American households through
Unlike taxes, the cost of
Some analysts estimate that the total cost to comply with federal regulations now exceeds $2 trillion per year. To cover their compliance costs, American businesses are forced to raise the prices they charge for the goods and services they sell. Businesses are also forced to cut their other costs, reducing what they can spend on wages, employee benefits, research and development, and production facility upgrades.
Regulatory compliance costs impose a tremendous burden across the American economy—a hidden tax that we all pay in higher prices and smaller paychecks. If this hidden $2 trillion tax were spread evenly to all American households, the share for each household would amount to approximately $15,000 per year—50 percent more than the federal taxes paid by a middle-income American household!
Related Stories
5/14/2025
5/13/2025
The $2 trillion figure is just one estimate. Another, by the National Association of Manufacturers, puts the total cost to comply with
On the other hand, progressive advocates for federal regulation argue that compliance costs are much lower than either figure, and certainly lower than the societal benefits that result from regulation.
In the absence of an agreed upon procedure to calculate regulatory compliance costs, there is no way to reconcile such differences. There is no way to collect and disseminate a single set of data that could support an informed public debate about the cost and benefits of federal regulation; no way to quantify and make public the hidden cost of federal regulation. At least until now.
Congress is hard at work on the president's big, beautiful tax and budget bill. Republican leaders are hoping to complete work on the legislation and send it to the president by the Fourth of July. With that bill, Congress has a historic opportunity to bring transparency to the hidden cost of
It is entirely appropriate to reimburse regulated entities for their compliance costs. Such costs are not fines or penalties or awarded damages resulting from some failure to comply with regulatory requirements. Such costs are incurred by blameless entities in the normal course of business to maintain compliance with regulations. The supposed societal benefits of such regulations are dispersed to taxpayers in general. The tax credit would simply provide a mechanism for those benefited taxpayers to reimburse the entities that funded the benefits.
The tax credits claimed by regulated entities would clearly record the total cost of compliance with federal regulations and would provide the kind of information that could finally support a meaningful national discussion about the true costs and benefits of regulation.
By eliminating the need for regulated entities to absorb and/or pass through their compliance costs in the prices of their goods and services, the tax credit would eliminate the enormous inflationary pressures and other economic distortions that currently result from the imposition of trillions of dollars of regulatory burdens: higher prices, lower wages, and the diversion of capital from productive applications to compliance.
By imposing the incremental cost of regulations on the regulator instead of the regulated, the tax credit would significantly reduce the future number and scope of new regulations by compelling the federal government to take seriously the cost of its regulations.
A tax credit equally available to all regulated entities would also eliminate the economic incentives that larger, established companies currently have to support burdensome regulations that drive their smaller, less well-established competitors out of business.
Unlike the tax deduction against income currently available for compliance costs, reimbursement would not be contingent upon an entity having taxable income. All would be treated equally.
The tax credit would be fully self-funding because compliance costs will be incurred, and credits claimed, only when the government determines that the societal benefits of a new regulation will justify the compliance costs to be charged to the government.
Finally, the tax credit would provide a uniquely compelling economic incentive for businesses all over the world to locate or expand their operations in the United States, turbocharging other efforts underway to revitalize American manufacturing, correct the trade deficit, and expand job opportunities for American workers.
Republican leaders are pressing ahead to complete work on tax and budget legislation for the president's signature by the Fourth of July. If they include this regulation compliance cost tax credit, the legislation will, indeed, be a big, beautiful bill—and a grand birthday present to our country.
Reprinted by permission from
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
L.A. protests lead to new bill in Congress
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Rep Brandon Gill (R-TX) co-introduced the 'Lawless Cities Accountability Act' in Congress. The bill would withdraw federal funds from cities that don't stop violent unrest or don't accept help from federal law enforcement. 'We have to use the tools in our toolbox to ensure that our mayors and our governors like Gavin Newsom are following the law in this country, because if we don't have laws, we're not a country at all,' Rep. Mace told me. But will Republicans back measures like this? Of the more than 9.7 million people who live in Los Angeles County, more than 1.1 million people voted for President Trump in 2024. When I brought up the potential threat of funding to Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) earlier this week warned not to 'lump everyone in California in with the actions of a few leaders.'


CNBC
14 minutes ago
- CNBC
PBS, NPR funding on the line as House nears final vote on $9.4 billion in DOGE-backed cuts
The House on Wednesday moved a step closer to approving President Donald Trump's $9.4 billion spending cut package, which would codify some cuts originally proposed by the Department of Government Efficiency. The package would grant permission to the White House not to spend billions of dollars that had already been approved by Congress. The money would be clawed back from specific agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes federally appropriated grants to National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Although the Wednesday procedural vote passed largely along party lines, a final vote expected Thursday could see some resistance from House Republicans who are uneasy about the popular programs that are being targeted, like PBS and National Public Radio. Given House Speaker Mike Johnson's narrow Republican majority, he can only afford to lose a handful of votes and still push the package over the finish line on a party-line vote. Johnson said earlier this week that he was "working on" getting enough Republicans on board to pass the DOGE package, CNN reported. Wednesday's vote also finalized changes to Republicans' "big, beautiful bill" that were required by the Senate before the measure was allowed to pass with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote Senate threshold. Budget measures like the "big, beautiful bill" can be considered under a special set of rules known as reconciliation. The Senate's parliamentarian, who acts as a sort of referee in disputes over Senate rules, had flagged some provisions in the package earlier that she said were incompatible with the chamber's reconciliation rules.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thune on protests: LA ‘needed some outside help'
WASHINGTON, DC (KELO) — Senate Majority Leader John Thune is defending President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard and send in Marines to put a stop to clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement in Los Angeles. Cheyenne River Reservation authorities investigating 2 deaths The South Dakota Republican fielded reporters' questions on a range of topics Wednesday on Capitol Hill, including the ongoing protests over immigration raids. The City of Los Angeles reported fewer clashes overnight as a curfew went into effect. Yet tensions remain high as members of the military are on standby in case of more violence. Thune says the military presence was needed because local officials in California didn't have a handle on the situation. Thune called public safety a 'political imperative' while discussing the protests taking place this week in Los Angeles. 'Because one of the most fundamental questions most people, or most voters ask is my family safe? Is my neighborhood safe? Is my community safe? And when you can't answer that in the affirmative, then you've got a problem and I think that's what they ran into in Los Angeles which is why they needed some outside help,' Thune said. But House Democrats say Los Angeles didn't need outside help from the military to keep the violence in check. 'And state and local law enforcement officials are prepared to do that. At the same time, we respect the right and should embrace the right for any American to peacefully protest,' (D) House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said. Thune wouldn't directly answer one reporter's question about President Trump's pardons of January 6th rioters. Manu Raju: 'Do you see any inconsistency when a president criticizes and condemns the violent LA protests but then pardons the violent January 6th protestors?' 'I think the issue that's in front of us right now is the chaos in Los Angeles. And clearly, the local officials there, for whatever reason, didn't seem up to the task,' Thune said. Critics say President Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles will only provoke more violence. But Thune and other Republicans on Capitol Hill say it was a move that needed to be made. 'At the end of the day, it's about preventing chaos and preserving law and order,' Thune said. A federal judge will hold a hearing Thursday on California Governor Gavin Newsom's request to stop President Trump from using troops in Los Angeles. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.