Peeling Back the ‘Cover of Darkness’ on Obama’s Regulatory Agenda
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration’s long-delayed laundry list of the federal regulations it intends to pursue this year, released under what one lawmaker described as the “cover of darkness,” looks to contain proposals that are more costly than those offered by the president’s immediate predecessors.
If fully implemented, the regulatory agenda as it is popularly known could wind up costing the public $123.2 billion, according to an analysis by the American Action Forum, a conservative, Washington-based think tank. The 2,387 tenders also are projected to result in at least 13 million paperwork burden hours.
“The totals are higher than those found in other administrations,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a critic of the federal government’s regulatory system. “Generally speaking, there are more economically significant rules than were offered not just in the (George W.) Bush administration but also in the Clinton administration.”
The White House has not commented on the agenda. One administration official noted that the list contains rules that are being studied and that most will never be implemented. Executive agencies have finalized only 43 out of the 132 economically significant active rulemakings contained in the fall 2011 agenda.
Regulations, which carry the force of law, are created by the executive branch to implement the laws adopted by the legislative branch. Regulations essentially detail how the administration intends to interpret the law, a process that frequently leads to conflict with lawmakers who maintain proposed rules differ with legislative intent.
Beginning in 1994, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the executive branch was required to issue two reports annually, traditionally in April and October, outlining the “economically significant” regulations it intends to develop — generally defined as those having an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. Subsequent changes now require notification of all regulations under consideration by about 60 departments, agencies and commissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency usually provides the thickest – and most expensive – folder. The departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Energy and Transportation also usually contribute a substantial number.
Portman said release of the agenda helps the public and regulated parties understand new rules under development, including their potential compliance costs and effect on small businesses. Yet in 2012 the Obama administration all but ignored the law, snubbing the April report altogether and delaying the release of the October report until Dec. 21 – the Friday preceding the four-day Christmas holiday when few were around the nation’s capital to notice. The release came little more than a month after the successful conclusion of President Obama’s re-election campaign.
The administration has offered no rationale for its fast-and-loose treatment of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The closest it came was a letter last summer to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, explaining that it was waiting for several agencies to forward their proposed regulations.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, said Obama refused to issue the agenda in a timely fashion “because he doesn’t want the American public to know the terrible cost of the regulatory barrage he plans to unleash in a second term.”
Inhofe accused the administration of intending to “move forward with a slew of rules that will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and dramatically raise the cost of energy on American families” as the result of clean air initiatives. He cited a report from the National Economic Research Associates projecting that new regulations under development by the Environmental Protection Agency could lead to the elimination of 887,000 jobs, mostly in the nation’s coal fields.
Why isn’t Congress and SCOTUS using their balance of power authority to reign in this administration?
WE have a Congress passing laws to justify their existence and federal agencies thinking up new regulations to justify their existence.
Stop the growth of government and we can maybe get a handle on this mess.
That’s why I wanted Rick Perry, he gets the idea of limited government. He just got caught on camera with brain freeze. It’s an interesting thing to wonder about how different the world would look if McCain had won in 2008.
U.S. Attorney’s office protected Rezko friend Dr. Ronald Michael
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/01/09/u-s-attorneys-office-protected-rezko-friend-dr-ronald-michael/
“Why isn’t Congress and SCOTUS using their balance of power authority to reign in this administration?”
Because the system is broken! While most people look down on the members of Congress, I feel that some of the best brains in the country reside there. The problem is that interests, processes, ideologies, attitudes, personalities, goals, personality disorders and other mental aberrations have revealed the complexities of real life at the top. It is quite literally too difficult for even the best minds to cope with the intricacies that have been created – in some areas perhaps purposely, like Obamacare.
Add to that Obama’s training to take advantage of problems to stir things up and his lack of ability to solve any real problem and I believe that nothing good will happen in America for a long time.
These are not generalities to which I am referring. “Fast and Furious”, BenGhazi, the National Debt, confiscatory taxation, no budget, the coming decimation of the military, election violations such as vote buying and “leading from behind” in terms of foreign policy each have criminal or civil statutes that could be invoked directly against Mr. Obama that should under normal circumstances lead to his impeachment and trial. Failure to uphold his oath of office to support the Constitution and the laws that derive from its application is now considered to be merely a matter of opinion and not a matter of law. Why doesn’t the House impeached him and allow the Senate to decide whether he has carried out his duties? Social pathology! They cannot decide to use their power because it would be impolite!
I blame the congressional practice of logrolling where many loosely related law changes get mashed together in huge must-pass bills that get passed at the last minute. Imagine an alternate world where small bills to undo old laws could get to the floor for an up or down vote provided they don’t add to government spending. On “Small Bill Tuesday”, if you can collect some minimum number of cosponsors, you can bypass leadership and get an up-or-down vote to end certain agricultural subsidies, for example. Sure there would be petty political fights, but those fights would be fought in the direction of reducing the size and scope of government. I’d rather see bitter personal fights over killing sacred cows instead of cozy backroom deals to bring home the bacon.
Instead of using “popularly” to describe Obamacare, I would have chosen “colloquially” or maybe “pejoratively” because there’s just nothing popular about Obamacare or its billion and one little rules and regulations.
Since when have the “death panels” been debunked? A committee to ration care is exactly that.
Good catch Joe. Looks like the writer thinks that this pension advisory board is all about really making things better but anyone who has watched the NHS in the UK knows that this monstrosity of a law in Obamacare has the potential to bankrupt this country in ways that far exceed the rampant incompetence of medicare, medicaid and social security. Also the Liverpool Path project in the UK is the Hannibal Lecter equivalent of a death panel if I have ever seen one.
Debunk is umbug
Tommy Gunn
It would be amusing to listen to listen to conservatives rant against ‘Obamacare’, if healthcare in the US wasn’t so tragically inept in the face of the alarming realities about American’s health.
Despite spending more per person on health care than any other country, Americans are getting sicker and dying younger than their international peers — a problem persisting across all ages and both genders, according to a new report.
“…according to a new report.”
Bull. Post the link to your report, useful lefty.
Besides, what do you care about conservative “rants”, on Obamacare? (I didn’t actually see an Obamacare rant in the article in any event.)
You got what you want in Obamacare, so just sit back and relax while all the cost savings roll in, the infant mortality rate drops, lifespans increase, and the health and vitality of Americans jumps to new heights. Let your Truth carry the day.