Pence wants moratorium on new business regulations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence said Tuesday he would issue a temporary moratorium on new business regulations pending a review of existing red tape because companies need a break from the hundreds of new rules imposed by fellow Republican and current Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Pence said that if elected, he'll issue an executive order to declare a moratorium on new regulations and ask his budget office to review existing rules, business fees, and regulatory performance metrics to ensure they were the least costly and had the least impact on job creation.

"The state has added almost 1,200 new regulations in the past four years," Pence said. "Businesses need relief, and they need it now."

Democratic gubernatorial nominee John Gregg said the proposal showed Pence was "out of touch" with the state.

"This is what happens when you're out of state and out of touch: you call Mitch Daniels an overregulating job-killer," he said in a statement.

Daniels remains popular but is barred by state law from seeking a third term as governor.

Pence said the moratorium would not cover regulations needed to address emergency health or safety concerns or to meet federal mandates.

He also said the budget office's review of existing regulators could be completed at no additional cost to taxpayers by shifting resources to the agency.

Pence said regulation can be "a bureaucratic nightmare" for small businesses, costing them 36 percent more per employee than big companies. He supported his claim by citing a study published by the U.S. Small Business Administration in September 2010.

Small businesses employ nearly half of Indiana's workforce, and in the past 30 years, companies that have fewer than four employees have been responsible for the state's net job growth, he said.

"The health of our state's economy depends on the health of our small businesses," Pence said. "Every dollar not spent on regulatory paperwork is a dollar that Indiana businesses can spend putting Hoosiers to work."

The Pence proposal also calls for reviewing Indiana's practice of directly regulating certain occupations that employ 1 of every 7 Indiana workers. Pence also would establish a "sunrise" review of any legislation that creates new occupational licenses, with a focus on creating only those needed for job growth.


  • ironic
    i just find it ironic that with all the regulations that are in place when a major corporation screws up democrats cry for additional regulations that punish the small competitors that did nothing wrong in the first place. This then in the end benefits the large firm as it prevents the smaller competitors from gaining traction and growing. These huge abnormally large banks such as fannie and freddie get to be so large because they continue to grow because of less competition because more regulation prevent competition. These superbanks gain political power while the regulations in place that try to prevent fraud only create a barrier of entry for smaller competitors. I use banks as an example but this goes for all small business trying to compete with large business.
  • Blue Sky Campaign
    Why is Mike Pence running such a blue sky/populist campaign? His commercials about ice skating and flooded homes say nothing about how he will govern. Due to his congressional record and his social issue near obsession, he needs to give me some definitive information if he wants to convince this life long conservative voter he's the man for the job
  • oversimplification
    Typical politician catering to masses with a simple message that "all regulation is bad" How fast do we forget what led or at least greatly contributed to this recession? It certainly was not a result of too much regulation. Not to mention what was it like before Securities Act of 1933 & 1934. Sure, in an ideal world, we would have a perfect balance, but saying that world was better before SEC or EPA is beyond ridiculous.
  • to Tom
    i agree that there are some regulation needed....very little though. There's always going to be corporations or business that don't play by what is 'right thing to do'. its the thinking that huge regulation leads to eliminating corporate greed that is messed up. All the regulations do is give people like yourself the assumption that companies are playing by the rules when in fact all they do is prevent companies from being caught sooner, create huge amounts of paperwork and bureaucracy that is expensive and time consuming. The ponzi scheme with Madoff went on as long as it did because people believed that huge returns year after year were legit because the SEC had regulation in place that were looking out for them. We find out that these didn't work and now the government wants more regualtion. Eliminating the unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy with only help small business thrive and when large companies go bad their true colors will show quicker. Small companies can spend their money on employees and growing the business instead of government employees shuffling paperwork and creating a new set of rules to regulate the previous set of rules.
  • Why do we need regulations?
    Why do we need regulations? Because Corporate America too often isn't a good citizen, looking to abuse citizens, take advantage of the weak, the poor, the disenfranchised, destroy the environment for a dollar. If the corporate leaders were more respectful and responsible then we wouldn't need the regulation. Fat chance that would happen. Pence is taking a page from Florida Gov Rick Scott's playbook... Scott has less than 30% approval....
    • he's right
      the biggest issue in all levels of government is constantly increasing regulation. people have no idea how much it limits business growth. people think the SEC regulates illegal activity. all it does is give people a false sense of security while in prohibits growth of the 99% who want to grow their business and do things the right way. Someone want to start a business such as a restaurant, good luck going through yeas of regulation created by democrats. enough with the regulations that just waste time, money, and create roadblocks for legitimate business growth.
    • Really?
      Your first real idea and it is a bad one. We need better regulations, not less. First, does this mean that if a designer drug is developed a regulation can not stop the sale? Why not get rid of the gas tax which effects every hoosier, or reinstate the inheratance tax and give any small business (six employees or less) a total tax abatement on all taxes. Or, lower the unemployment tax that effects all small businesses. C'mon Mike you can come up with any idea the can help our state. I sometimes you just like to hear yourself talk.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

    2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

    3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

    4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

    5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.