Obama’s secret (and illegal) regulatory bomb

[daveman]

Obama’s secret (and illegal) regulatory bomb

The fiscal cliff looms and, because it would be the largest tax hike in history, certainly deserves all the attention it’s getting. But a regulatory cliff also looms — an astonishingly growth-crushing regulatory agenda that could be even more devastating than the fiscal cliff. How devastating? Obama refuses to tell us. And that’s illegal.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the president is required by law to submit his regulatory agenda to Congress twice a year, in April and October. The report is required to include every economically significant regulation in the pipeline. This year, April came and went and the legally required report wasn’t filed.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) last week politely asked President Obama to follow the law: “I request you comply with the law and publish the federal government’s regulatory calendar this month. Businesses and communities need to understand the future regulatory landscape in order to properly plan and invest in the economy.”

The reply? None. October came and went with no response and no legally required regulatory agenda report. That’s because complying with the law would tell the American people how much economic pain the Obama administration has stored up for a potential second term.

We don’t know exactly how big the regulatory bomb is going to be because of Obama’s illegal secrecy, but an estimate from the National Federation of Independent Business of some of the known rules clocks in at over $515 billion in economic costs. That estimate doesn’t even include an expected ban on coal-fired power plants whose costs could run into the trillions.​

This President thinks he's above the law.

His bootlickers let him get away with it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

 

[Sarah G]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

And sour grapes thrown in for good measure.

 

[daveman]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

Then you get to find proof that Obama submitted his regulatory agenda to Congress, as required by law.

Of course, you cannot do that, since your little tin god has failed in his duty.

But that won't stop you from dutifully kissing his ass, will it?

Face it, Roxy -- you're just a mindless sheep.

 

[daveman]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

And sour grapes thrown in for good measure.

Since I know Roxy will splutter and huff and fail in general, perhaps you'd like to find where Obama complied with the law.

Or, as is far more likely, you will splutter and huff and fail in general.

 

[g5000]

Do you have any other source besides the Daily Kotex which says the President has to meet this requirement?

.

 

[g5000]

Here is the SBA web site which lists all of the Regulatory Alerts in the Federal Register as required by the law: Small Business Administration - Office of Advocacy - Regulatory Alerts

.

 

[g5000]

More information here: Office of Advocacy - Regulatory Flexibility Act - A Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act | SBA.gov

.

 

[g5000]

Here is a more objective news source about this controversy: Political Diary: Where's the Transparency, Mr. President? - WSJ.com

Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has spent the past week noting that the Obama administration as of today will be missing a statutory deadline on regulatory transparency. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register descriptions of economically significant regulations they expect to propose. These agendas are required to be published on a semi-annual basis, in both April and October. The Obama administration has now failed to meet this legal requirement since the fall of 2011.

That is no doubt because to comply with this law, the Obama administration would have to confess to its plans to continue with more than a dozen wildly unpopular and hugely expensive environmental regulations.

The statutory deadline is one which was set by an Executive Order signed by President Bush in 2002.


Executive Order. You know. Those things which dictators use. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

.


.

 

[Katzndogz]

November surprise: EPA planning major post-election anti-coal regulation | WashingtonExaminer.com

The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

The Obama EPA has estimated that this regulation alone will cost the U.S. economy $10.9 billion a year.

We need regulation, but not this much | Richmond Times-Dispatch

According to a report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "The published regulatory burden for 2012 [alone] could exceed $105 billion. . . . Since January 1, the federal government has imposed $56.6 billion in compliance costs and more than 114 million annual paperwork burden hours."

Ask Jones about paperwork. Buckingham Slate is overseen by an alphabet soup of federal and state agencies, and "each one of them wants something from us all the time that is costing us money" — spill-prevention plans that require hiring an engineer; pre-shift inspections; dust monitoring; and more. Jones estimates that five of his 45 employees spend 20 percent of their time simply filling out paperwork.

This is why so many businesses have indicated a desire to leave the US for more business friendly countries.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

Then you get to find proof that Obama submitted his regulatory agenda to Congress, as required by law.

Of course, you cannot do that, since your little tin god has failed in his duty.

But that won't stop you from dutifully kissing his ass, will it?

Face it, Roxy -- you're just a mindless sheep.

You have the nerve to call someone ELSE a "mindless sheep" after posting this drivel?

We don’t know exactly how big the regulatory bomb is going to be because of Obama’s illegal secrecy, but an estimate from the National Federation of Independent Business of some of the known rules clocks in at over $515 billion in economic costs. That estimate doesn’t even include an expected ban on coal-fired power plants whose costs could run into the trillions.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

Then you get to find proof that Obama submitted his regulatory agenda to Congress, as required by law.

Of course, you cannot do that, since your little tin god has failed in his duty.

But that won't stop you from dutifully kissing his ass, will it?

Face it, Roxy -- you're just a mindless sheep.

Except the president isn't required, by law, to submit any such report. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy is though.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their regulatory actions on small businesses and other small entities and to minimize any undue disproportionate burden. The chief counsel for advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration is charged with monitoring federal agencies' compliance with the act and with submitting an annual report to Congress.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

Then you get to find proof that Obama submitted his regulatory agenda to Congress, as required by law.

Of course, you cannot do that, since your little tin god has failed in his duty.

But that won't stop you from dutifully kissing his ass, will it?

Face it, Roxy -- you're just a mindless sheep.

Except the president isn't required, by law, to submit any such report. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy is though.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their regulatory actions on small businesses and other small entities and to minimize any undue disproportionate burden. The chief counsel for advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration is charged with monitoring federal agencies' compliance with the act and with submitting an annual report to Congress.

 

[Freemason9]

Right wingers are funny sometimes. They are so paranoid.

 

[daveman]

Here is a more objective news source about this controversy: Political Diary: Where's the Transparency, Mr. President? - WSJ.com

Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has spent the past week noting that the Obama administration as of today will be missing a statutory deadline on regulatory transparency. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register descriptions of economically significant regulations they expect to propose. These agendas are required to be published on a semi-annual basis, in both April and October. The Obama administration has now failed to meet this legal requirement since the fall of 2011.

That is no doubt because to comply with this law, the Obama administration would have to confess to its plans to continue with more than a dozen wildly unpopular and hugely expensive environmental regulations.

The statutory deadline is one which was set by an Executive Order signed by President Bush in 2002.


Executive Order. You know. Those things which dictators use. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

.


.

Yeah. And Obama still has to abide by it.

Except he thinks he's above the law.

 

[daveman]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

Then you get to find proof that Obama submitted his regulatory agenda to Congress, as required by law.

Of course, you cannot do that, since your little tin god has failed in his duty.

But that won't stop you from dutifully kissing his ass, will it?

Face it, Roxy -- you're just a mindless sheep.

You have the nerve to call someone ELSE a "mindless sheep" after posting this drivel?

We don’t know exactly how big the regulatory bomb is going to be because of Obama’s illegal secrecy, but an estimate from the National Federation of Independent Business of some of the known rules clocks in at over $515 billion in economic costs. That estimate doesn’t even include an expected ban on coal-fired power plants whose costs could run into the trillions.

Yeah. So you can't find proof that Obama submitted his regulatory agenda to Congress, as required by law either, huh?

No one has been able to. Like you, they chose to keep kissing Obama's ass.

 

[daveman]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, all suppositon and no facts.

Then you get to find proof that Obama submitted his regulatory agenda to Congress, as required by law.

Of course, you cannot do that, since your little tin god has failed in his duty.

But that won't stop you from dutifully kissing his ass, will it?

Face it, Roxy -- you're just a mindless sheep.

Except the president isn't required, by law, to submit any such report. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy is though.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their regulatory actions on small businesses and other small entities and to minimize any undue disproportionate burden. The chief counsel for advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration is charged with monitoring federal agencies' compliance with the act and with submitting an annual report to Congress.

Did you know that an annual report is one that happens once a year?

Did you further know that reports submitted twice a year are NOT annual reports?

The Executive Branch has to submit reports twice a year.

Morning Bell: Administration Ignores Law, Delays Exposing New Regulations

After three years of hyper-regulation, the Obama Administration has noticeably slowed its rulemaking in recent months. A variety of major rules have been parked in prolonged “review” by the White House, while the regulatory agenda required by statute has failed to materialize—twice. This flouting of the law is disturbing enough, but it’s made worse by the mounting regulatory uncertainty that has ensued.
Congress mandated a regulatory agenda from each agency in 1980, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The statute calls for release every April and October of a summary of all rules likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a substantial number of small firms. Subsequent executive orders extended the requirements to all regulations under development or review by some 60 departments, agencies, and commissions.

--

Among the most costly:

• A Department of Transportation rule to require a rear-view camera and video display for all new cars and trucks, at an estimated cost of up to $2.7 billion.
• Revisions to the so-called Boiler MACT rules that impose stricter limits on industrial and commercial boilers and incinerators. The EPA pegged the cost of its original proposal at $9.5 billion, but independent analysts estimated the cost to be as much as $20 billion.
• Energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers as well as commercial refrigeration, which would apply to virtually all equipment used in retail food stores. This is estimated by the Department of Energy to increase manufacturing costs by $500 million over four years.
• Department of Labor restrictions on worker exposure to crystalline silica (fine particles of sand common to mining, manufacturing and construction). One analysis submitted to OIRA by engineering and economic consultants estimated compliance costs would be $5.5 billion annually, the loss of 17,000 “person-years” of employment, and $3.1 billion of economic output each year.

DOT? EPA? DOE? DOL?

All work for Obama. The Executive has to submit summaries of these twice a year.

He hasn't. Because he doesn't want the political fallout to affect his re-election bid.