A speech last week by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly targeting the cost of federal regulations on businesses produced a rare standing ovation on the floor of the House of Representatives and created Internet buzz about Kelly, with the speech being widely viewed on YouTube. His five-minute speech on the burdens of regulations and red tape earned him praise within conservative circles, but received little attention in the mainstream media.

As odd as it might sound, President Barack Obama expressed similar views about nonsensical and costly or complex regulations when he issued an executive order in January 2011 to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses. Unfortunately, not much has been heard about the results of that effort.

At the time, Obama said he wanted to “root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”

Those are exactly the kinds of regulations that Kelly complained about in his rousing House speech last week. In his speech, Kelly held up a stack of 1,100 pages of proposed rules that people at Nextier Bank told him they received recently from the government for determining a person’s creditworthiness. In his speech, Kelly also told the story of the renovated Pullman Park almost not opening on schedule in 2007 because the mirrors in the men’s bathroom were a quarter of an inch lower than regulations specified.

Kelly and Obama both say they would like to reduce regulations by eliminating rules that are duplicative, wasteful or simply stupid. Given this potential common ground, it is conceivable that Republicans and Democrats could work together to reduce some of the burden of regulations on businesses. But recent experience suggests that neither side is interested in working with the other party.

Critics of Obama’s regulatory-reform effort argue, however, that his pledge to trim regulations is mostly a sham.

In one case, the challenge of reforming bureaucracy is clear. The General Services Administration (GSA) produced a 12-page report about reducing regulations. The first nine pages of that report talked about the plan for developing a plan. Only three pages contained regulatory-reform ideas. And even then, three of the five suggestions were reforms that had been started during the Bush administration.

The challenge of reducing regulations is daunting because bureaucracies have a tendency to grow for the sake of growing, and regulators have a tendency to regulate. Trimming, eliminating or reducing regulation does not come naturally in government.

Another problem facing congressional efforts to reduce regulation is that few in government have dealt with the kind of regulations and red tape Kelly described in his speech. Unlike Kelly, most members of Congress have backgrounds in government or law, not business.

Few in Congress and few people in the White House have personally dealt with frustrating, wasteful or stupid government regulations. They lack Kelly’s passion for reducing the burden of red tape because they have not seen it.

Regulatory reform won’t spark an economic recovery. But when consumer demand does return and the economy begins to grow, growth would be stronger with a reduced regulatory burden.

The House bill that Kelly endorsed in his speech would prohibit new government regulations until the unemployment rate fell below 6 percent. It passed with a 245-172 vote, mostly along party lines. But it is not expected to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. And that’s what frustrates most Americans about government today — impassioned speeches and symbolic votes, but no changes.

At least in the case of regulatory reform, there appears to be common ground and the opportunity for compromise. But it will require Republicans and Democrats to sit down together and start working.