The new plan is designed to mitigate extreme water levels and increase the total regulation benefits.
IP governance and regulation benefits economic growth by providing incentives for innovation without hindering transfer of knowledge (Atun et al. 2007).
Flood regulation benefits people directly by decreasing the socio-economic costs of flooding and indirectly by its positive impacts on cultural (e.g., fishing) and provisioning (e.g., water supply) ecosystem services.
For the majority, whether striking down a campaign finance regulation "benefited real people" was beside the point because any distinction that treated the corporate entity differently than real people would improperly discriminate against the corporation as "a disadvantaged person or class".
Smart regulations benefit consumers as well as businesses.
Yet its not clear that those regulations benefit anyone but the lawyers who get paid to enforce them.
We expected that this negative association would diminish in regulated versus unregulated states, if these regulations benefited poorer constituents.
It's the kind of reflexively anti-regulation, benefit-slashing playbook you'd see from almost any Republican in the game.
We must not allow Republicans to implement their policies of trickle-down economics with tax policies and regulations benefiting only the rich.
And just as with lead, right wing opponents ignore or deny the obvious benefits derived from the regulations, benefits that would not be forthcoming if market forces alone were brought to bear on the problem.
Indeed, even the Bush administration found that major regulations' benefits far outweigh their costs, concluding that the totals cost of major regulations issued from 1997-2007 was between $46 billion and $53 billion, while benefits were, at minimum, more than twice that: $122 billion to $656 billion (see here at page 10).
