Congratulations, Mr. President: America’s Great Recession is over, indeed officially ended for two years, since June 2009. On the first anniversary, your White House proclaimed “Recovery Summer” and your Treasury Secretary said “Welcome to the Recovery.” One summer later, you say you are “dissatisfied” with the economy.

The recession actually ended before his “cures.” Barack Obama certainly tried everything: $800 billion in stimulus, $2 trillion in asset purchases by the Federal Reserve, $4 trillion in deficits, nationalization of auto and insurance companies, “historic” bank, securities, environmental and consumer regulation, and a multi-trillion dollar health insurance program. Nothing seemed to work, or even was judged popular by the folks he was trying to help.

This recovery has been the weakest of any since the 1930s Great Depression. Income after taxes did increase 3.1 percent since last year but consumer inflation was up 2.5 percent, producing an anemic 0.6 percent real net gain, compared to seven percent improvement after the same span following the 1981 Reagan recession. The dollar has dropped ten percent against other major currencies. After two years and trillions in spending, nine-plus percent of workers remain unemployed. If those who want to work but who have become discouraged are included, 14 million or 16 percent of Americans are without a job and a regular source of income.

The president’s priorities are suggested by how he spends his time. A front page study in the Washington Post of his recent appearances demonstrates that his favorite pastime is to highlight the “green” jobs “of the future” that his administration has created “in the private sector.” He does not mention that all of these are highly subsidized by the government and would disappear in a private market without this taxpayer support. The former community organizer simply does not understand that subsidizing such firms retards recovery for more efficient firms in the businesses of today, rather than for those in a future that may never arrive.

At his recent media conference, President Obama did announce a plan to cut government regulations “that could potentially save billions of dollars for companies over the next several years.”  He was followed by regulation czar Cass Sunstein claiming that Obama’s first two years produced fewer regulations than George W. Bush. While a low standard, the Competitive Enterprise Institute found 339 rules costing business $100,000 or more under Mr. Bush’s last two years but 408 under Mr. Obama. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, Obama’s claim is a “mirage” as the rules are in fact “worse” today. When one considers the thousands of rules issued for ObamaCare already and the four hundred for the Dodd-Frank financial act, no one should be surprised.

Republicans say the answer is to cut spending. This would surely help but it is unpopular. People know something needs to be cut, but not their own favorite. The real spending problem is Medicare and seniors just will not listen to reductions. Even the supposedly radical Paul Ryan proposal would do nothing for ten years. The Democrats control the Senate and President Obama would veto anything serious anyway. Even if the Republicans won the presidency in 2012 and a majority in the Senate, no one expects a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority. Truth be told, the GOP is just as afraid of the elderly as the Democrats. None of the political pros was fooled by AARP’s offer to discuss reform. The senior lobby just wants a seat at the table so it can more successfully derail change.

The annual Bank for International Settlement study shows 45 million are now unemployed in the advanced world economies of Europe and Japan, up 50 percent since 2007. It is the same everywhere, only in Greece there is rioting in the streets. The poor nations are even worse. Even Germany’s government debt is 87 percent of its economy and Britain’s is 89 percent. Well, that is Europe. But the U.S. debt is 101 percent. As economic analyst Robert Samuelson notes, “It’s not just a few countries that face austerity but most advanced nations. We’ve arrived at a historical reckoning of the post World War II welfare state, burdened with aging populations and huge debts.”

If the Republicans did win the presidency and Congress but could not revive the economy and bring down unemployment dramatically, they would be turned out just as quickly as the Democrats were before them. Other than reducing as much government spending as possible, which would benefit the economy, although gradually, what could rev up the economy so that voters could not miss it? The president is correct that regulations are the key.  Rather than face jail or enormous fines for making normal economic decisions, businessmen have decided it is safer to borrow funds at the Fed’s bargain rates and buy back government or private bonds with slightly higher returns. But the Dodd-Frank regs are the president’s pride and joy. Even in announcing his regulatory reform, the president could not help complaining about the “business community:” saying even “when unemployment’s at 3 percent and they’re making record profits, they’re going to still complain about regulations” because they want to “maximize their profits.”

Was that not the purpose of reducing regulation? A recent Washington D.C. Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Policy Studies analysis looked at 50 years of data to assess the effects of government spending on regulatory activity and the resulting economic and job growth. It found that reducing regulation and its enforcement bureaucracy would grow the economy and invigorate the labor market. “Even a small 5% reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) is estimated to result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually.”

A 16 percent cut in regulatory budgets – merely what a balanced budget would have required over the past decade – would save over one trillion dollars in just five years and create 4.2 million new jobs, according to the Center’s econometric estimate. Of course, this is merely a general estimate of reducing regulation. Targeting the expensive ones like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank would yield much more. Telling the public about the really foolish ones might make the case even more effectively. One small example is the ban of Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb. The 2007 Energy Bill phases out incandescent bulbs, with the 100-watt this coming January 2012, then the 75-watt bulb in January 2013, and 60- and 40- watt bulbs in January ’14. The most likely replacement, the CFL bulb, not only emits a strange glow but the Environmental Protection Agency recommends several steps to avoid mercury poisoning if a CFL bulb breaks at home: clear people and pets from the room, air it out for five-10 minutes, turn off any central air, and put the broken glass in a sealed container for hazardous waste disposal.

What are real Americans doing? They are hoarding Edison’s wonder invention, of course, pushing prices higher. When Sears tried to comply with Canada’s ban scheduled for 2012, it feared that CFL’s mercury was too dangerous and decided to shift to LED bulbs but could not find a manufacturer. “Either the color changed or they failed completely,” according to one spokesman. In the end, Sears decided to proceed anyway to offer both types but, fearing public reaction, the Canadian government delayed legal implementation until 2014. Recently, General Electric closed the last of hundreds of U.S. plants manufacturing incandescent bulbs leaving the great majority of manufacturing of new bulbs to China.

This does not sound like the way to create U.S. jobs. Congress may fear cutting entitlements but Republicans could showcase such regulatory disasters that discourage U.S. jobs across many products and industries. The EPA would be a good place to start. The White House budget office itself puts the annual cost of its regulations at $23 billion, costing hundreds of thousands of jobs. The current environmental scare is against so-called hydraulic fracturing to pump shale oil – widely available in the U.S. – even though the science demonstrates it is safe and cheap. Does reliance upon Middle Eastern and Libyan oil seem safer? Indeed, polls show increasing skepticism from the public about the environment/jobs tradeoff. The House test vote on light bulbs and the Republican Conference plan to highlight such abuses are good starts. But it will need a president to make it work.

Immediately upon taking the oath of office, a new Republican president should declare an emergency and announce a Regulatory Holiday during which his administration would Constitutionally refuse to enforce any regulation not explicitly required by statute that did not threaten public safety. The first step would be to eliminate Obama’s abusive Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and his Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group. Any business making economic decisions would be granted a safe haven to operate profitably without fear of bureaucratic intimidation or vague charge such as “conspiracy” unless there actually was a proven underlying crime. All contrary claims would be settled in civil cases brought by real people claiming real harm rather than bureaucrats following arbitrary rules. Maximizing profit would no longer be deemed improper, the economy would hum, and millions of jobs would be created.

As the frustrating debt extension negotiations demonstrate, reducing spending will take a long time. Shutting down the inefficient regulatory welfare state can be done immediately, and without 60 votes in the Senate. A Republican president could do it by himself (or herself). The question is which of the candidates has the boldness and the savoir faire to pull it off.

Donald Devine was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 under Ronald Reagan and is the editor of ConservativeBattleline Online.