Worst Regulations of 2012 and Beyond

[Moonglow]

Well if that is the ten worst it doesn't seem all that bad.

4. New York’s 16-Ounce Soda Limit

Not all regulations come from Washington. On September 13, at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Board of Health banned the sale of soda and other sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Yet you can purchase a 40oz. beer and race to da bottom!

 

[Glensather]

Going to comment on each one
Comments will be in red

According to the Heritage Foundation's "Morning Bell" this morning, here are their pick for the ten worst regulations of 2012. I am going to guess that some can find some additional ones to suggest for the list. But some of these are pretty amazing.

The 10 Worst Regulations of 2012​

It seems that no aspect of American life can escape government regulation. In the past year, regulators drafted rules that addressed everything from caloric intake to dishwasher efficiency.

Most of these rules increase the cost of living, others hinder job creation, and many erode freedom. Not all regulations are unwarranted, of course, but increasingly, the rules imposed by the government have less to do with health and safety and more to do with whether government or individuals get to make basic pocketbook and lifestyle decisions that affect them. And it is not just the regulators who are to blame. Congress writes laws that give unelected bureaucrats the broad powers they wield.

Today we bring you 10 of the worst regulations from 2012:

1. HHS’s Contraception Mandate

The Department of Health and Human Services on February 15 finalized its mandate that all health insurance plans include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization procedures, and contraceptives. To date, 42 cases with more than 110 plaintiffs are challenging this restriction on religious liberty.

I understand the intent of the mandate, but I don't agree that it should be required in your health insurance. It should be optional at best.

2. EPA Emissions Standards

The EPA in February finalized strict new emissions standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utilities. The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually.

That's a pretty steep cost. But I still support anything that cuts down on fuel emissions. But that said, it's only half the issue. The administration is going to have to face the facts: Until we make alternative energy viable, we're stuck with coal and oil.

3. Fuel Efficiency Standards

In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in tandem with the Environmental Protection Agency, finalized fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2017–2025. The rules require a whopping average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Sticker prices will jump by hundreds of dollars.

Someone will have to explain to me why this is bad.

4. New York’s 16-Ounce Soda Limit

Not all regulations come from Washington. On September 13, at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Board of Health banned the sale of soda and other sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Because regulating what people eat is going to stop them from becoming fatties. Right.

5. Dishwasher Efficiency Standards

Regulators admit that these Department of Energy rules will do little to improve the environment. Rather, proponents claim they will save consumers money. But they will also increase the price of dishwashers, and only about one in six consumers will keep his or her dishwasher long enough to recoup the cost.

Again, understand the intent, but perhaps they should look more closely to see just how positively this affects things. If right now it's a net loss, then there's no point.

6. School Lunch Standards

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in January published stringent nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs. More than 98,000 elementary and secondary schools are affected—at a cost exceeding $3.4 billion over the next four years.

Cause again, regulating food consumption will help.
Not exercise or activity. Oh no.

7. Quickie Union Election Rule

In April, the National Labor Relations Board issued new rules that shorten the time allowed for union-organizing elections to between 10 and 21 days. This leaves little time for employees to make a fully informed choice on unionizing, threatening to leave workers and management alike under unwanted union regimes.

Don't see the problem with this , but I live in a right to work state.

8. Essential Benefits Rule

Under Obamacare, insurers in the individual and small group markets will be forced to cover services that the government deems to be essential. Published on November 26, the HHS list of very broad benefits has created enormous uncertainty about the extent of essential treatment.

What defines "essential?"

9. Electronic Data Recorder Mandate

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on December 13 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to mandate installation of electronic data recorders, popularly known as “black boxes,” in most light vehicles starting in 2014. The government mandate understandably spooks privacy advocates.

I don't expect this to go away anytime soon. The government wants to become Big Brother, has wanted to for like 40 years.

10. “Simplified” Mortgage Disclosure and Servicing Rules

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its proposal for a more “consumer friendly” mortgage process, with a stated goal of simplifying home loans. The rules run an astonishing 1,099 pages. Then, one month later, the bureau proposed more than 560 pages of rules for mortgage servicing.
Morning Bell: The 10 Worst Regulations of 2012

Because logic.

 

[Foxfyre]

I like the way the EPA requires Ethanol in fuel which damages cylinder walls and ignition systems lowering fuel economy yet requiring higher standards at the same time.

Proof positive that the government finds ways to screw up a wet-dream on a regular basis.

Sulphur content in diesel fuel is another. Supposedly the sulphur dioxide produced by burning diesel is a contributor to acid rain. And yet I have also read that the sulphur content is heavier than air and quickly settles out of the atmosphere when burned in vehicles and never reaches the levels that could contribute to acid rain. The process of removing the sulphur is extremely time consuming and expensive which is why diesel fuel is so much more expensive than gasoline these days. And because almost everything is moved via railroad and diesel, the upward pressure on inflation is obvious on everything we buy.

So is that a regulation we really need? Or no? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Billo_Really]

Fraud, waste & abuse is the method of liberals.

Do you support these bullshit wars we're fighting?

Do you support the size of the defense budget?

Then don't talk to me about "fraud, waste & abuse".

 

[GoneBezerk]

Asswipe....the US military protects scum like you so that you can be a fool on the internet.

Fraud, waste & abuse is the method of liberals.

Do you support these bullshit wars we're fighting?

Do you support the size of the defense budget?

Then don't talk to me about "fraud, waste & abuse".

 

[Foxfyre]

Going to comment on each one
Comments will be in red

NOTE: EXCERPTED FROM GLENSATHER'S MUCH LONGER POST:
3. Fuel Efficiency Standards

In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in tandem with the Environmental Protection Agency, finalized fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2017–2025. The rules require a whopping average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Sticker prices will jump by hundreds of dollars.

Someone will have to explain to me why this is bad.

It all comes down to a matter of choice. If American's don't WANT small, light, mega fuel efficient vehicles, this regulation takes away the choice to have a Hummer or Expedition if that is what somebody wants. Can a Chevy Volt tow a fifth wheel or a large boat up a mountain? How about all our farmers and ranchers who tow farm equipment or loaded horse trailers? The U.S. automobile industry got into trouble before making cars and trucks nobody wanted to buy. Or the large family that needs the big van if everybody travels together.

So yes, getting 55 mpg looks really good on paper. But is it worth it if people can't recoup the additional cost through fuel economy? (Refer to the dishwasher standard reg as a comparison.) Or if people lose the choice of buying the kind of vehicle they want or need?

 

[Glensather]

It all comes down to a matter of choice. If American's don't WANT small, light, mega fuel efficient vehicles, this regulation takes away the choice to have a Hummer or Expedition if that is what somebody wants. Can a Chevy Volt tow a fifth wheel or a large boat up a mountain? How about all our farmers and ranchers who tow farm equipment or loaded horse trailers? The U.S. automobile industry got into trouble before making cars and trucks nobody wanted to buy. Or the large family that needs the big van if everybody travels together.

So yes, getting 55 mpg looks really good on paper. But is it worth it if people can't recoup the additional cost through fuel economy? (Refer to the dishwasher standard reg as a comparison.) Or if people lose the choice of buying the kind of vehicle they want or need?

It may be a result of having to give up certain things to save our future (I guess), but I do see your point.

However, let me ask: If a vehicle capable of 50+ MPG were able to pull as hard as any truck, would you still be against it? The technology for such a thing is still way off, but it's possible.

 

[mudwhistle]

It all comes down to a matter of choice. If American's don't WANT small, light, mega fuel efficient vehicles, this regulation takes away the choice to have a Hummer or Expedition if that is what somebody wants. Can a Chevy Volt tow a fifth wheel or a large boat up a mountain? How about all our farmers and ranchers who tow farm equipment or loaded horse trailers? The U.S. automobile industry got into trouble before making cars and trucks nobody wanted to buy. Or the large family that needs the big van if everybody travels together.

So yes, getting 55 mpg looks really good on paper. But is it worth it if people can't recoup the additional cost through fuel economy? (Refer to the dishwasher standard reg as a comparison.) Or if people lose the choice of buying the kind of vehicle they want or need?

It may be a result of having to give up certain things to save our future (I guess), but I do see your point.

However, let me ask: If a vehicle capable of 50+ MPG were able to pull as hard as any truck, would you still be against it? The technology for such a thing is still way off, but it's possible.

Who do you think pays for tech developments in the marketplace?

The consumer ultimately.

 

[Glensather]

Well, ultimately, yeah.
I'm a technophile, so I love new developments and am even willing to pay for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

It all comes down to a matter of choice. If American's don't WANT small, light, mega fuel efficient vehicles, this regulation takes away the choice to have a Hummer or Expedition if that is what somebody wants. Can a Chevy Volt tow a fifth wheel or a large boat up a mountain? How about all our farmers and ranchers who tow farm equipment or loaded horse trailers? The U.S. automobile industry got into trouble before making cars and trucks nobody wanted to buy. Or the large family that needs the big van if everybody travels together.

So yes, getting 55 mpg looks really good on paper. But is it worth it if people can't recoup the additional cost through fuel economy? (Refer to the dishwasher standard reg as a comparison.) Or if people lose the choice of buying the kind of vehicle they want or need?

It may be a result of having to give up certain things to save our future (I guess), but I do see your point.

However, let me ask: If a vehicle capable of 50+ MPG were able to pull as hard as any truck, would you still be against it? The technology for such a thing is still way off, but it's possible.

Of course I wouldn't be against it. I'm not against it now. And at the current fuel prices, believe me, if they can show me a vehicle with the relieability and function of my current vehicle at the same price AND offer me 15 to 20 more mpg, I would jump at it. But I don't want my government having the power to tell me what I should want and/or dictating to me what products I will be allowed to have. A government with that kind of power can soon do anything to me it chooses to do. And the great experiment the Founders gave us is no more.

You see either the people have the choice--which is what freedom is--or the government has the choice. If the government is the only one with the ability to choose, there is no freedom.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the worst they could find? Nutrition standards for kids in schools, emissions and efficiency standards, and health insurance benefit protections?

Have you checked to see what those nutrition standards are?

I'm generally pleased any time the Institute of Medicine's recommendations make it into federal policy.

The proposed rule sought to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat fluid milk in the school menu; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat and trans fat in school meals; and meet the nutrition needs of school children within their calorie requirements. The intent of the proposed rule was to provide nutrient-dense meals (high in nutrients and low in calories) that better meet the dietary needs of school children and protect their health. The proposed changes, designed for meals offered to school children in grades Kindergarten (K) to 12, were largely based on the IOM recommendations set forth in the report ‘‘School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children’’ (October 2009).

In summary, the January 2011 proposed rule sought to improve lunches and breakfasts by requiring schools to:

• Offer fruits and vegetables as two separate meal components;
• Offer fruit daily at breakfast and lunch;
• Offer vegetables daily at lunch, including specific vegetable subgroups weekly (dark green, orange, legumes, and other as defined in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines) and a limited quantity of starchy vegetables throughout the week;
• Offer whole grains: half of the grains would be whole grain-rich upon implementation of the rule and all grains would be whole-grain rich two years post implementation;
• Offer a daily meat/meat alternate at breakfast;
• Offer fluid milk that is fat-free (unflavored and flavored) and low-fat (unflavored only);
• Offer meals that meet specific calorie ranges for each age/grade group;
• Reduce the sodium content of meals gradually over a 10-year period through two intermediate sodium targets at two and four years post implementation;
• Prepare meals using food products or ingredients that contain zero grams of trans fat per serving;
• Require students to select a fruit or a vegetable as part of the reimbursable meal;
• Use a single food-based menu planning approach; and
• Use narrower age/grade groups for menu planning.

Which is all well and good, but totally useless if the child refuses to eat the mandatory food selection, however nutritious. What does it profit us if most of the stuff goes into the garbage. Which, as a member of a school board, we had to consider in our own policies.

Of course we want the children to eat nutritious food. That was once accomplished by not having vending machines of any kind anywhere on the school grounds. But then Congress mandated that every school tray must have a vegetable on it. So what did we do on the days we served hamburgers or hotdogs? We added the damn carrots or broccoli or some other healthy choice. And 99% of that went into the garbage. What kid wants cooked carrots or broccoli with his/her hamburger? (The lettuce and pickle on the hamburger apparently didn't count.)

So, it was during the Reagan administration that the regs were that ketchup would suffice for a veggie--this to prevent thousands of dollars in food waste because the kids wouldn't eat mandatory vegetables with lunches that normally would not have a cooked veggie. There was a LOT of criticism, much jokes, and much derision re that ketchup policy.

But, in my opinion it is not school lunches that make kids fat. Back when I was in school, the lunches were just as starchy and less than optimal nutrition, but we ate them with minimal complaint or brought our lunches. And child obesity was very rare back then.

So maybe the lunches aren't the problem.

 

[RoadVirus]

Liberals are ok with:

- forcing kids in school to eat "healthy food" that most times ends up in the trash after the kids find other tasty food from friends.

Not to mention how kids become lethargic the rest of the school day due to the lack of substance the "healthy food" contains.

 

[Moonglow]

I like the way the EPA requires Ethanol in fuel which damages cylinder walls and ignition systems lowering fuel economy yet requiring higher standards at the same time.

Proof positive that the government finds ways to screw up a wet-dream on a regular basis.

you love rich influential people that lobby for laws and regs, yeah, it's gggggggreat!

 

[boedicca]

Death by a thousand chains.