U.S. Economy May Revive in 2017, Part 2

Conclusion of two part forecast of the U.S. economy

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) reports optimism among its members. “12 percent of small business owners have faith their business conditions will be ‘much better’ in the next six months (up from the 9 percent who said the same earlier this year), showing that despite sales numbers, owners still retain a positive outlook… ‘It is encouraging to see many businesses improving their outlook about the future, after a brief dip in confidence earlier this year,’ said Buck Stinson, SVP of Small Business Card at Capital One. While concerns related to costs and regulations still exist, we are glad to see that optimism is on the rise…”

The NFIB has blamed regulatory overload as a key reason why so many small businesses have been pessimistic during the Obama Administration. “The uncertainty caused by future regulation negatively affects a small business’ ability to plan for future growth. While regulation is necessary, it must be pragmatic and sensible. Agencies need to carefully analyze how their regulations affect small businesses. At the same time, federal regulators should work with small businesses to help ensure compliance with the spirit of the law, rather than aggressively impose fines and penalties for violations that result from confusion…Since January 2009, ‘government requirements and red tape’ has been a top-three problem for small business owners, per NFIBs monthly Small Business Economic Trends survey. According to the 2012 NFIB Small Business Problems and Priorities report ‘unreasonable government regulations’ ranks fifth on the measures of small business problem importance. Within the small business problem clusters identified by the Small Business Problems and Priorities report ‘regulations’ rank second behind taxes. There are 3,297 federal regulations in the pipeline, waiting for implementation, according to the Administration’s fall 2015 regulatory agenda. About 10 new regulations are finalized every day, according to data on regulations.gov, adding to the volumes of rules small business owners must comply with.”

CNBC notes: “One thing is for sure: for many on Main Street, the notion of deregulation is welcome. Nonpartisan advocacy groups say a Trump presidency may spark new, important discussions about how regulations impact the country’s smallest businesses.”

Pain in the lower tummy, cloudy, sometimes bloody or foul-smelling urine, or even a fever – all of these are signs levitra india regencygrandenursing.com that you have to see an urologist. It affects the response viagra on line cheap to sexual stimulation. Manforce help sustain an erection during sexual viagra canada deliver activity. InjuriesDamage cheap prices for viagra regencygrandenursing.com to nerves in the pelvis also can rotate as a block around the vertical lumbar spine. With the significant philosophical change in the white House, there is an extensive push to reduce government regulations in key areas. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has proposed a “free market policy Agenda” for the Trump White House, “aimed at strengthening the economy and removing barriers to economic freedom in five key policy areas: regulatory reform, energy and environment, labor, finance, and technology and innovation. From replacing key agency heads to overturning burdensome regulations, CEI recommends several actions federal departments and agencies can pursue immediately to promote innovation, job creation, and financial freedom for all Americans.

“Many of our nation’s laws give broad discretion to federal regulators to force sweeping change over vast swaths of the American economy. Over the last 15 years, we have seen fundamental overhauls of major economic sectors: the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley financial services “reform” law, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, and restrictions on affordable energy sources. For those Americans who are struggling financially, the need for regulatory reform has never been greater. Instead of chipping away at the margins, CEI believes we need substantial reforms that rein in federal bureaucrats so that our economy, and ultimately American consumers, businesses, and entrepreneurs, can benefit and make real progress toward prosperity…While every year Congress passes just a few dozen laws, federal regulatory agencies issue more than 3,000 regulations—but lawmaking by the unelected does not end there.

“Agencies also issue thousands of guidance documents, interpretive bulletins, notices, memoranda, proclamations, and even blog posts that carry regulatory force, but do not go through the formal rulemaking process. Trump should insist upon congressional affirmation of rules, guidance, and other agency proclamations likely to have significant economic impact, or that are otherwise controversial. Unfortunately, the current watchdog gives the regulatory state little to fear. The White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reviews only a fraction of rules and often misses deadlines. That could change if Trump makes the most of his promised regulatory moratorium and toughens review and analysis of regulations. Trump could boost audits and cost analysis dramatically via executive order and work with Congress to bring now-exempt independent agencies into the fold. The following are three actions President-elect Trump should take to rein in America’s regulatory state.”

CEI recommends strengthening regulatory oversight by executive order, expanding executive restrictions over agency guidance documents, memoranda and other “regulatory dark matter,” and working with congress to implement a pro-growth agenda.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.