(Part 9 in an 11-week economic plan to get Michigan moving again and get our people back to work)

There has been a lot of talk recently, both nationally and as part of the local political discussion, about the proper role of regulation. To some, regulation – any regulation – is always bad, an ideological position that I suppose makes up for impurity what it lacks in common sense.

Put simply, regulation is the rulebook, which governs the game, the playing field on which businesses compete. At one time in our nation’s history, child labor was acceptable. This meant that those businesses that refused to use child labor were too often put at an economic disadvantage when competing with businesses that did. By imposing regulations that ban the use of child labor, we as a society simply leveled the playing field, taking away the disincentive to do the right thing. That’s what regulation does when it’s used correctly.

Now, we can all point to regulations or bureaucratic processes that go too far or don’t make any sense. For example, a good friend recently reopened the grocery store in Kaleva. Residents of Kaleva and the surrounding area can now shop at Kaleva Meats where they’ll get a good steak and a smile from Dave and can save the gas it previously took to drive to the next nearest grocery store. The Kaleva Meats was recently told that it would take a full year to get their beer and wine permit. Now I understand the need for beer and wine licenses, but at a time when we are trying to encourage entrepreneurs like Dave to open up new businesses and create new jobs in our local communities, it’s crazy to me that something so simple would take so long. As our next State Representative I will work to promote common sense in our regulatory environment so that businesses can move forward.

Another area where I think we can see improvements is in the permitting process for areas, like alternative fuels, where Michigan has some unique strengths and has an opportunity to see significant job growth and investment. An example from California shows the impact licensing can have on our attempts to promote this exciting high-growth area. A couple years ago, California was trying to encourage growth in its emerging bio fuels sector but no matter how lucrative the tax incentives or how much the government backed research and development, efforts there seemed to see little movement. The reason: a business looking to distribute bio fuels had to go to nearly two dozen state agencies to receive an individual permit from each. This cumbersome process discouraged all but a few entrepreneurs from developing businesses in the bio-fuel area. Recognizing the effect this was having, California streamlined its permitting process allowing businesses to get all the necessary permits in one place. The actual health and safety protections went unchanged, but by making it easier for bio fuel companies to do business in California, many of them did.

As State Representative, I will take a hard look at regulations to find ways that we can make the permitting process easier and the regulations less onerous while protecting the safety of our workers, the health of our communities and the natural resources of our Great State. I will also work to ensure that regulations are appropriate to the specific context, and that we’re not promoting a one size fits all approach. Finally I will introduce legislation to create the position of Business Ombudsman, charged with hearing the concerns of the business community and working with both the administration and legislature to return common sense to Michigan’s regulatory environment. This last idea comes from Don Coe of Black Star Farms, who may have to discontinue part of his business-an area where he has been sending sales tax to the state for the last 8 years!-because of a change in interpretation in one of the regulations affecting his business. It is examples like this that hurt Michigan’s ability to compete.

However there is a bright-lined distinction between working to eliminate regulations that are either out-dated or redundant, and taking a firm ideological position that all regulation is bad. When one looks at the national housing market, or a stock market that is in free-fall, the idea that these problems were caused by too much regulation is simply ridiculous. And yet, that seems to be the position of my opponent. He has said, “Regulation is the bane of business,” and has even argued against regulation that would require equal pay for women when they do equal work. We don’t need to end regulation in Michigan; we just need to make it smarter. That’s just one more fundamental difference between my opponent and myself.