
A focus on regulatory overreach, things that the benefit doesn't
A focus on regulatory overreach, things that the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost, is probably the single greatest opportunity we have for having a positive impact on job creation.






Hear the words of Thom Tillis, who declared: “A focus on regulatory overreach, things that the benefit doesn’t outweigh the cost, is probably the single greatest opportunity we have for having a positive impact on job creation.” Though spoken in the tongue of governance, these words carry the weight of an ancient truth: when rules become burdens heavier than the blessings they bring, they cease to serve the people and begin to strangle them. For the purpose of law is not to bind life, but to guard and guide it. When law becomes excess, it hinders growth instead of sustaining it.
The origin of this saying rests in the halls of modern America, where lawmakers wrestle with the tension between freedom and order. Tillis, like many before him, looked upon the vast body of rules and mandates and saw not only protection but also chains. His words remind us that every society must strike a balance: too few rules, and chaos reigns; too many, and progress withers. Thus, he calls for vigilance against regulatory overreach, warning that prosperity falters when men and women labor more for compliance than for creation.
History has spoken this lesson before. Recall the fall of the late Roman Empire, which in its decline buried its citizens under endless decrees and taxes. The people, once free and industrious, found their spirit crushed beneath the weight of excessive control. Commerce dwindled, farms lay fallow, and innovation ceased. The empire that once built roads across the world could no longer maintain its own granaries. This was overreach—laws that no longer served their people, but drained them. The cost had far outweighed the benefit.
And yet, let us not misunderstand Tillis’ wisdom. He does not call for the destruction of law, but for its refinement. Just as a gardener prunes a tree not to kill it but to strengthen it, so must a nation prune its regulations. Some rules protect the weak, preserve the land, and guard against corruption. These must remain. But when regulation multiplies without thought, when it burdens the craftsman, the farmer, or the builder more than it protects them, then the roots of job creation dry up, and the people suffer.
The deeper meaning is this: opportunity thrives in balance. When the cost of rule exceeds its benefit, society pays a hidden price—fewer jobs, fewer dreams, fewer chances for families to rise. But when law is wisely shaped, when freedom and order walk hand in hand, then the land is fertile, and the people flourish. Thus, the true art of leadership is discernment: to see which rules serve and which rules suffocate, and to have the courage to cut away the excess.
The lesson for us is clear: in every realm of life, weigh the balance of cost and benefit. Do not cling to traditions, habits, or rules that strangle your growth. In your work, in your family, in your community, ask: does this practice still serve us, or has it become a burden? To prune away what no longer brings life is to create space for new growth. To cling blindly to every rule is to suffocate under the weight of your own making.
Practical action lies before us: leaders must continually review laws to ensure they serve the people, not themselves. Citizens must raise their voices when burdens grow too great, but also defend those protections that preserve fairness and safety. On a personal level, each of us must learn this same balance—casting off what hinders, embracing what strengthens, and guarding against the excess that consumes energy without return.
Thus Thom Tillis’ words endure as a call to wisdom: beware of overreach, for it is the silent thief of progress. Shape your rules with care, weigh the costs against the benefits, and seek always the path that multiplies freedom, labor, and opportunity. In this way, the people will not wither beneath the weight of law, but rise in strength to build a future rich in jobs, in dignity, and in hope.
NNnei nei
I agree with the sentiment that excessive regulation can be burdensome for businesses, but there’s a nuanced issue here. Regulations often have important purposes that aren't immediately obvious, such as consumer protection or preserving fairness in the market. If we remove regulations too hastily in the name of job creation, what are we sacrificing in terms of long-term social and environmental stability?
TAnguyen thi an
The idea that regulatory overreach could be limiting job creation is an interesting one. However, what does it mean when the 'cost' of regulation is unclear or subjective? For example, some might argue that environmental regulations cost businesses, but they also protect public health and the planet. How do we make sure we are making fair comparisons when evaluating the costs and benefits of regulations?
NNNguyen Nhat
I understand Tillis’s point about regulatory overreach possibly stifling job creation, but how do we measure the costs and benefits of regulation? It’s not always easy to quantify the positive impact of regulations on public health or safety. How do we make sure that reducing regulations doesn’t lead to other negative social or economic outcomes, like increased inequality or environmental damage?
ATPham anh thu
Tillis seems to be advocating for the removal of regulations that are not yielding a clear benefit. While reducing excessive regulations can indeed help create jobs, shouldn’t we also consider the long-term effects of deregulation? Could the immediate boost in job creation lead to unintended consequences in the future? How do we strike the right balance between growth and responsible governance?
HV9/4 Hien Vi
This quote brings up an interesting point about the balance between regulation and economic growth. If regulations are overreaching and hinder business growth, it makes sense that reducing those regulations could potentially boost job creation. But, is there a risk in removing regulations that protect workers, the environment, or public safety? How do we ensure that job creation doesn't come at the expense of these critical protections?