House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has posted a list of what he terms the Top 10 Job-Destroying Regulations. This is the first list I’ve seen that spells out the most destructive regulations on the move, out of the 4,257 regulations set for implementation this year. Here’s the list. On his blog, Rep. Cantor goes into detail about each one. The dates in parentheses are targets for the House to take them up and repeal them as part of its larger jobs agenda.
1. NLRB’s Boeing Ruling (Week of September 12)
2. Utility MACT and CSAPR (Week of September 19)
3. Boiler MACT (Week of October 3)
4. Cement MACT (Week of October 3)
5. Coal Ash (October/November)
6. Grandfathered Health Plans (November/December)
7. Ozone Rule (Winter)
8. Farm Dust (Winter)
9. Greenhouse Gas (Winter)
10. NLRB’s Ambush Elections (Winter)
The House will begin taking these regulations up for repeal in a couple of weeks. Repeal would depend on the Democratically controlled Senate, of course. But President Obama could unilaterally repeal all but the NLRB action via executive order today if he really wants to get the economy moving again (whether or not he can overrule the NLRB is less clear).
I think the GOP should put the focus on the president to act. He is unlikely to do it; these regulations fit his overall agenda and represent, for him and many of his supporters, policy successes. But pushing him to act while defining the damage these regulations will do highlights that he is choosing to allow these job killers to move ahead, and exposes everything else he says about economic growth to be either clueless or disingenuous. He can’t vote present on this, and can’t be allowed to hide behind the bureaucracy that he controls. Make him answer directly for what his minions are doing to the US economy.
Seven out of ten are from letting the greens run riot.
Well, it *is* the only religion the left likes to see mixed with public life.
The more I see of Cantor, the more I like him. The sooner he becomes Speaker, the better.
Marc…what did you hear from Cantor thats not been in the GOP political rhetoric manuals forever?
What is the lower tax rates he’s touting for, for the private sector economies?
What are the specific federal regulatory policies he wants to eliminate?
What specific classes of small business is he referring to in his rhetoric? Most small business classes are ‘exempt’ from most of his ‘policy’ rhetoric.
What turns you on in his rhetoric to restrain fical budgetary deficits when nothing he touts does anything to reduce the principal debt?
Nothing in his rhetoric does anything to defict spending other than some arbitraty outlying years in which no other congress is bound to.
What in his rhetoric turns you on about his ‘plans’ to reconstitute the economy? The government and the economy are long locked into the global order for which, if Dr. Paul were to have his way, it would return the U.S. back to a relative stone age isolated government and economy. How many Americans today, are willing to return to the individual wealth structure and lifestyles predating the 1940′s? NO legitimate economist would ever try to infer that our nation’s economy can progress from where it is today UNTIL the global economy that is in a deep recession can recover….and guess who holds the majority of the world’s economic/monetary wealth? Certainly not any free world government!
I’m just trying to understand how you buy into the simplistic, superficial and deceptive rhetoric of Cantor or any politicians. NO sitting congress or president controls the government or the economy! That ended when the government submitted to the ‘external forces’ of the New World Order and a One World Government in the early 20th century.
re: ["What are the specific federal regulatory policies he wants to eliminate?"]
I meant to include…that he can actually abolish without some pretty complex consequences.
The first thing the next republican president should do is issue an an executive order banning the agencies from issuing an regulations for the next eight years without an express approval from the president. The second thing would be to rescind every regulation promulgated in the last 80 years and only reinstate the few necessary ones after careful consideration. The third thing is to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act and rescind the executive order allowing the unionization of federal employees. That could done right after the swearing in and before the inaugural lunch. That alone would galvanize the economy and that alone would make that president a very successful president in economic terms.
Sure, who needs clean water and clean food, right? Who need safe airplanes and safe working conditions, right? Who needs qualified teachers and firefighters, right? Your vision of America is bigoted toward the current black man in the white house. It is that simple and clear. Please try and put your country first, your pitiful support for the GOP cult last – dead last, where it belongs.
To hear you tell it, Jimbo, there were no safe airplanes, there was no clean water or air, etc., until Barack Obama decided to cry “Havoc!” and unslip the dogs of regulation.
Were you really drinking raw sewage and flying in unsafe crates prior to 2009? Of course not. There were plenty of regulations that were unnecessary, duplicative, and/or oppressive before Obama took office, and under his watch the federal agencies have materially expanded them. Cantor is targeting Obama’s new regulations which are preventing the economy from recovering despite his drunken spending spree.
Oh, and by the way; what has the federal government to do with standards for teachers and firefighters? These things are rightly the concern of the state and local governments, not the federal government.
Pay close attention to the two charts!
http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off
Your point, TT? Since the article you linked to was written before Obama unleashed his own blizzard of regulations which he piled on top of whatever his predecessor has done, you should by all rights be howling for the Obama regulations to be rescinded across the board so that the Bush regulatory burden can then also be lifted.
You seem to be unaware that George Bush has been out of office for some time.
Monkey….for political party zealots, I guess there would be no point in the reference I posted….just wouldn’t serve your purposes very well would it?
I’m trying desperately, T.T., to not consider you precisely a “political party zealot”—and mentally challenged, to boot.
That Bush may have imposed many regulations is not something anyone here is defending; doubtless, many of them could stand to be repealed. But whether he did or he didn’t, that has nothing to do with Obama having not only piled Pelion atop Ossa as far as regulations are concerned, but having also enacted specific regulations which are specific job/recovery killers—and having done so, furthermore, becaues he is so dictatorially-minded that he is attempting to govern by presidential decree rather than by furthering Congressional authorization.
There are two issues here: one is the overall quantity of regulations, the other whether or not the regulations are being used as an end run around the Congress. Obama is guilty on both scores—and he is the man in the Oval Office, not Bush.
Cantor is a whore. To him, letting your family die in a natural disaster is a choice: To help or put more money into the pockets of his benefactors. He is the typical F*ck you republican. If you like him (#2 above), you have some mental health issues to address. He is everything which is wrong about America.
Jimbo — troll much?
Monkey you stated; ["There are two issues here: one is the overall quantity of regulations, the other whether or not the regulations are being used as an end run around the Congress. Obama is guilty on both scores—and he is the man in the Oval Office, not Bush."]
Nope! There are NOT two issues at hand for you. Theres only one and that is playing the blame game for which you hope to snare some lesser intelligent or informed people into siding with you.
By comparison, Obama is doing the same regulatory expansion that the Bush administration preceding him was guilty of and other presidents of the GOP before Bush were gulity of over the past 50+ years. Until you take the time to read through all more than 3,500 regualtory passages in 2007 ALONE in the Bush administration, in comparison to Obama’s, to find all those ‘equally’ jobs and economic killing regulations…you lack any credibility!
Not at all, TT: last in, first out. You get rid of the most recent useless crap, foisted by the most recent administration, and then work your way back through the next-most-recent, and so on. Of course, if you wanted to go to the source and simply scrap a number of the regulation-generating agencies outright, along with their regulations, that’s fine with me.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that because one flawed man who is no longer in power did something excessive and stupid, that grants a pass to his currently-in-power successor.
How terribly wrong you are.
Nope, I’m not wrong! I don’t know of many companies that would hire you as their inventory auditor if you advocate LIFO over FIFO….not that many use those system today. However, you don’t shoot blind to efficiently determine cost factors, be it inventory or regulatory policies. Therein lays the problem with the TeaParty-GOP Cantor followers.
Of the three categories of federal regulatory policies you couldn’t begin to count the sub-categories much less the actual number of regulations which ultimately become layers upon layers of codified and administrative modifications. None are simple black and white across the board regulations. For example. Between our crops production, ranching, feedlots, elevators, vet clinics/labs and milling operations most of the EPA and FDA regulations guidelines and enforcement are completely different for each operation though dealing primarily with the same agri classes of regulatory policies.
There are two cost basis points regulatory policies the first is the government cost point. The second is the industry cost point. In the first instance the cost is borne on the backs of the taxpayer. The second is again born on the backs of the taxpayer-consumer. In other words to the second instance; any economic costs to the industry is added to the CODB and passed through….in most cases. In our case we would not typically be able to add regulatory costs to our grain production operations because that pricing is controlled by the commodities markets. So, we bypass the commodities markets in most instances by carrying a rolling inventory of nearly a million bushels of various milling grains. We then sell it to our milling and feedlot operations where in most market conditions we can add all or a portion of the regulatory costs and pass it through. I’m not going to disclose what we absorb but it is fractional to our overall operations.
Most production and services industries that are not exempt have their ways of passing through regulatory costs. If you look at it from behavioral economics you will see that it is a case of being so fractional the consumer hardly notices it and rarely if ever complains. Regulatory costs in the private sector are not honestly even in the top categories of inflation variables of goods and services.
Last but not least for now. There is more than one class of small business. The ‘typical’ small business classes are “exempt” from many/most federal regulatory policies.
So all this simplistic and superficial rhetoric of taxes and regulatory policies being an economic and jobs killer is hogwash…especially if they want to maintain their position that the ‘backbone’ of the economy and jobs is small business. If they were to claim heavy industry, logging, refining, etc., as the backbone then maybe, just maybe they would has a short leg to stand on. The normal ‘lobbyists’ are controlling the rhetoric of their political pawns. The point is nobody has done a comprehensive study industry by industry and business class by business class to determine what regulatory policies need to be evaluated. Until that is done, such rhetoric is baseless and not credible.