Obama Admin Says Its Regulation Isn't Extreme or Unusual. Facts Say Otherwise.
The Wall Street Journal writes:
The White House is on the political offensive, and one of its chief claims is that it isn't the overregulator of business and Republican lore. This line has been picked up by impressionable columnists, so it's a good time to consider the evidence in some detail.
Jan Eberly, an Assistant Treasury Secretary, kicked off the Administration campaign with a white paper in October that purported to debunk the "misconceptions" that "uncertainty is holding back business investment and hiring and that the overall burden of existing regulations is so high that firms have reduced their hiring." Then the Administration mobilized some of the worst offenders, such as Kathleen Sebelius of HHS ("There has been no explosion of new rules") and Lisa Jackson of the EPA (her opponents are "using the economy as cover").
To answer the most basic question—has regulation increased?—we'll focus on what the government defines as "economically significant" regulations. Those are rules that impose more than $100 million in annual costs on the economy, though there are hundreds if not thousands of new rules every year that fall well short of that.
You can read the article, which I encourage, or you can trust your lyin'eyes. The Journal accompanies its article with this chart.
This chart just covers the big rules. The Obama admin is rolling out more than 4,200 new regulations by its own count.
When Obama talks about doing things Congress won't approve, he's referring to his increasingly onerous regulatory state.