That idea would only hold water if we didn't already have an extensive track record showing the idea of trickle-down being a complete failure.
"Could do" and "does do" are different concepts.
There are companies and industries that do successfully lobby their friends in Washington to remove regulatory aspects to save money. However, a quick look at historical earnings data and unemployment numbers would show that when those corporations do save money from regulatory aspects being removed, those cost savings don't go toward higher wages for the average employee or hiring more employees, they go toward larger salaries for the CEO and sizable bonuses for the executive teams and upper management. Now, removing costly regulatory aspects "could" turn into higher wages for all employees and new positions added. However, that would be up to the executives of the company on what they want to do with the new found cash flow...and as we've seen, when given that decision, they almost never choose "hey, our employees have been overworked and underpaid for a while, let's give out a company-wide 10% raise and get some extra bodies out there to lighten the load", it's almost always "Hey, let's have our corporate executive retreat in the virgin islands this year and seven-figure bonuses for the 20 of us"
Middle-out is has always shown to be the best policy to stimulate the economy, however, neither side seems to be fighting for that these days. The GOP fights for Top-down, and the Democrats fight for bottom-up.
