Put the emphasis on “at least.” The president made the admission in response to House Speaker John Boenhner’s letter to the president on August 26. In that letter, Boehner noted that the administration has 4,257 new regulatory actions in the works, and of those, more than 200 may cost $100 million or more.
In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Obama lists four proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules and three Department of Transportation rules estimated to cost in excess of $1 billion. One of the proposed EPA rules — an update to the health-based standard for smog — is estimated to cost the economy between $19 billion and $90 billion.
The letter, dated Tuesday, comes as the Republican-controlled House prepares to consider legislation that would require congressional approval for any new regulations that would impose a significant cost on industries.
The four environmental regulations, which target air pollution and coal residue primarily from coal-fired power plants, have already been attacked by House Republicans, who have said they would kill jobs and harm the economy.
The president went on from that admission, to say something that isn’t true.
The president said the seven proposals he did identify are not final and that his administration will “give careful consideration” to cost-savings. He said his administration already has made changes that have saved more than $10 billion in regulatory costs over the next five years, and said new regulations must meet cost-saving requirements that he ordered earlier this year.
The administration has given the EPA’s cross-state pollution rule such “careful consideration” that it included Texas at the last minute, despite the findings of the EPA’s own scientists that Texas’ pollution effect on other states is negligible. The president doesn’t address either facts in his letter.
And left off the president’s list entirely: ObamaCare.
The engineer is drunk in the cab, the switches are open, and we’re careening on a downhill grade.
If we only knew the whole story, you wouldn’t be so optimistic….
Total doom masquerading as “enlightened leadership”… what’s not to like?
Because the DOJ made the railroad hire a “recovering” alcoholic engineer.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind, and you know that notion just crossed my mind …
How about let’s:
> shorten the time congress is in session, and, since mandates by fiat seem to be in vogue,
> let’s mandate that during that time off, members of committees responsible for funding those agencies read every regulation and sign off that they approve
Elected officials (aside from Presidents who come and go) need to be held personally accountable for the actions of federal agencies and the unfettered busybodies that churn out these regulations.
BTW, $10 billion in saved regulatory costs is what percent of total imposed regulatory costs ?
Boehner et al, want to enable Congressional approval on only new regulations imposing significant costs? In rule-making, Congress sets out via statute, the legal boundaries between which an agency (e.g. EPA) may promulgate its rules and regulations. If those rules exceed the statutory limitations, it is Congress’ proper role, authority and obligation to strike down the offending provision(s) and/or the rule in its entirety, thereby compelling the agency to act within the confines Congress has stipulated. That Congresses–past and present–have not acted upon this legal authority or as seen above, wish now only to pass judgment on “new” cost-prohibitive regulations (versus existing, equally egregious) suggests that: 1)Congress is or has been complicit in desiring an expansion of the regulatory apparatus; 2)Congress is ignorant of the rule-making schema and its superior authority in limiting/eliminating rules and regulations not contemplated by Congress; 3)Congress has not the courage to act within its authority which, by extension, constrains the Executive, thus preserving expanded Executive authority when its party assumes the Presidency; or 4)All of the above.
The failure to act upon Constitutionally-endowed authority is political posturing, positioning and power-grabbing at its most offensive and is an affront to American citizens. Alternately, the members collectively may simply be ignorant. Either way, Congress has effectively abdicated (or is in the process of doing so) its proper role in governing the country.
Shame on us for allowing this travesty to occur.
For some reason, I think all these regulations are unconstitutional. Doesn’t Article I, Sect. 1 say: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” and isn’t regulation, legislation by another means? So, how could any regulation be constitutional when not passed as a bill by Congress which is then signed by the President? Regretfully, Congress has abdicated its role to the Executive and we are all living with the consequences. We must hold Congress’ feet to the fire to get them to enforce Article I Sect. 1 of the Constitution.