Peeling Back the ‘Cover of Darkness’ on Obama’s Regulatory Agenda
Portman said he also has been seeking an explanation from the administration to no avail. He believes the White House was hoping to avoid news about the administration approaching “the regulatory cliff” of higher costs and more red tape leading up to the November election.
“A lot of rule-making was put off until after the election and we now starting to see some of those,” Portman told PJM. “It was irresponsible of the administration not to follow the law and follow previous practice. They chose not to do a regulatory agenda for spring at all and in the fall they put it off as long as possible, under cover of darkness right before Christmas. It’s pretty obvious they were trying to hide the agenda.”
Over the last four years the president has consistently voiced support for limiting the number of regulations emanating from the administration. In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), dated Aug. 30, 2011, Obama said that “it is extremely important to minimize regulatory burdens and to avoid unjustified regulatory costs, particularly in this difficult economic period.” The president listed several initiatives taken by the administration to reduce the regulatory burden and he has occasionally boasted that his White House has adopted fewer new rules than his predecessors.
Portman countered by asserting the Obama administration has imposed more economically significant rules from 2009 through 2012 than during the first three years of any other presidency since such records were kept. The more than 160 economically significant rules issued from February 2009 through February 2012 marked a 40 percent increase over the same three-year period in the George W. Bush administration and a 20 percent increase over the Clinton Administration.
Several of the 2,387 proposed regulations listed in the December 2012 agenda have already drawn scrutiny:
- The EPA has proposed a water intake rule that would affect manufacturing and power plants that draw significant amounts of water to negate the overheating of equipment. Opposed by the utility industry, the regulation would require industries to use the best technology available to minimize the environmental impact of withdrawal. Portman said implementation of the regulation could cost energy consumers $4.5 billion per year. The administration’s estimate is considerably less.
- The EPA also is proceeding with a controversial regulation regarding emissions of ozone, which combines with other pollutants to form smog, contributing to a variety of health issues ranging from asthma to heart problems. Outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson attempted to implement the rule, lowering the regulation of 75 parts per billion set during the Bush administration to a stricter 60 to 70 parts per billion standard, in 2011. That effort was nixed by the White House under pressure from industrial interests before the 2012 election. Portman said the proposal carries “a massive price tag” and will particularly affect Midwestern states like Ohio that rely on coal-fired power plants.
- The Department of Labor wants to redefine the term “fiduciary” to include stock appraisers in privately held companies who are involved in employee stock ownership plans and trusts. Portman said the proposal tightens restrictions and extends risk to anyone who offers investment advice performed on a commission basis.
- The Department of Health and Human Services is looking to adopt rules on the administration of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. The goal of the 15-member panel is to implement savings in the Medicare program without affecting coverage or quality. These rules are receiving special scrutiny because IPAB is the commission that some opponents of the healthcare reform law refer to as the “death panel” that will decide who is worthy of medical care. The claim has been debunked but the regulations are in for close scrutiny.
The White House has issued an executive order announcing its intention to offer regulations that “protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.”
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.