New American:

Regulators R Us: Feds Crank Up Regulations — on Everything

Get set for the Obama administration’s post-election tsunami of business-killing, job-killing, economy-killing federal regulations. It’s already begun. Take a look at www.regulations.gov, the administration’s regulatory website. The home page informs us that in the last 90 days, the administration has posted 5,934 new regulations.

Yes, our federal bureaucrats have been very diligent. The above-mentioned website informs us of their daily productivity of regulations over the past 90 days:

Today (121)
Last 3 Days (274)
Last 7 Days (371)
Last 15 Days (826)
Last 30 Days (1,915)
Last 90 Days (5,934)

How will these regulations affect you, your family, your job, business, ranch, or farm? You may not have federal SWAT teams descend upon you, as has happened to dairy farmers and natural food store operators who dared to sell raw milk products not approved by the federal Food & Drug Administration (see here and here) or the hundreds of other Americans subjected to Gestapo-type treatment for running afoul of the volumes of murky and convoluted regulations that fill the 169,301 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) published in the Federal Register. However, even if your home, farm or business is not personally “visited” by agents of the FDA, EPA, OSHA, SEC, or any of the myriad other federal agencies, you will pay a huge price nonetheless, both in economic costs and in loss of freedoms.

A cost analysis by the Small Business Administration in 2008 found that the cost to our national economy of compliance with federal regulations was an astronomical $1.75 trillion!

That was in 2008. The cost, of course, has escalated dramatically in the four years since that study was conducted. We should note also that the 169,301 pages of federal regulations referenced above covers only those promulgated through 2011; it does not include thousands of pages added in 2012. Nor does it include the thousands of pages that are expected to soon be dumped into the pipeline by bureaucrats who had been instructed to hold off until after the election.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, between Jan. 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2011 the Code of Federal Regulations increased by 11,327 pages — a 7.4-percent increase. The regulatory burden is now a crushing weight on the entire economy, a hidden tax which is equivalent to roughly half the current federal spending and equal to the entire federal budget of the late 1990s.

A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce entitled Project No Project found that a broad range of energy projects “are being stalled, stopped, or outright killed nationwide due to a broken permitting process and a system that allows nearly limitless opportunities for opponents of development to raise challenge after challenge.”

The impact has been truly mind-boggling. The Chamber of Commerce study reported:

In total, the 351 projects identified in the Project No Project inventory could have produced a $1.1-trillion boost to the economy and created 1.9 million jobs annually during the projected seven years of construction. Moreover, these facilities, once constructed, would have continued to generate jobs, because they would have operated for years or even decades.

That’s nearly two million jobs annually, just in the energy sector, that are being killed by the federal regulatory straitjacket.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post on November 13, attorney Keith A. Ashmus noted that the regulatory cliff rivals the fiscal cliff among small business owners’ biggest concerns. And it is almost certain to get worse, if Team Obama has its way.

“Following President Obama’s reelection and the continuation of the current majorities in the House and Senate, we can expect continued difficulty moving initiatives forward legislatively in Washington,” noted Mr. Ashmus. “That means more regulatory activity, unrestrained by the any concerns about the president’s reelection. The Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board are likely to go after employers, large and small, with regulations that make it more difficult to manage workforces and obtain outside help understanding the legal requirements concerning unions.”

Obama Regulatory Plan: Sly, Not Shy

Not that President Obama has been shy about using executive branch regulations to get the Big Government programs he has been unable to get passed legislatively. In fact, following the 2010 congressional elections, in which the Democrats suffered historic losses in the House of Representatives, the Obama White House indicated it was going to move ahead with its agenda by executive fiat. The New American reported on this unconstitutional regulatory usurpation plan at the time. (See Obama Eyes "Executive Orders" to Circumvent Congress.)

However, with the economy imploding, unemployment skyrocketing, and with eyes fixed firmly on the 2012 presidential election, President Obama began a major effort, in 2011, to make it appear he was sensitive to the needs of job producers, especially stressing his administration’s commitment to easing the regulatory red tape that is so fatal to small and medium businesses that create most of our jobs.

Amid great fanfare, on January 18, 2011, President Obama signed “Executive Order 13563 — Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”

If words signified genuine intent, then there would be cause for rejoicing. The executive order stated, inter alia:

Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science. It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.

That was balm to the ears of struggling producers. Six months later, on June 13, President Obama launched follow-up public relations effort, signing “Executive Order 13576 — Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government.”

President Obama and members of his Cabinet made repeated ovations about the importance of small businesses and reducing the burden of regulation. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got on the bandwagon. In a speech to Arab leaders in New York on September 28, she sang the praises of deregulation as the solution to economic stagnation in the Middle East:

On the economic front, we are zeroing in on small and medium-sized enterprises because they are the growth engines in any economy. They create the bulk of new jobs and they spread wealth more broadly through more communities….

So the OECD is helping emerging democracies find ways they can loosen regulations and make it easier to start or expand a small business.

Regulation reform figures prominently on the White House’s 21st Century Government: Campaign to Cut Waste website. It is also a major feature of the White House’s Open Government Initiative, which says it’s all about “Transparency, Collaboration, Participation.”

To this end, President Obama issued a “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.” It is entitled: “Transparency and Open Government.” The opening paragraph reads:

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Where’s the Transparency?

CONTINUE READING:  http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors/item/13665-regulators-r-us-feds-crank-up-regs-%E2%80%94-on-everything

Obamacare Regulations Have Dragged $27.6 Billion Out Of The Economy

Obamacare Regulations Have Dragged $27.6 Billion Out Of The Economy, Killed More Than 18,000 Jobs…


Fully implementing Obamacare regulations have already cost the U.S. economy $27.6 billion and more than 18,000 jobs according to a new study released today. Just the top ten most expensive regulations have cost $24.4 billion, according to the new non-partisan and independent American Action Forum (AAF) report.

Just complying with the state health exchanges alone has to cost employers $3.4 billion according to the AAF totals which were compiled from Federal Register data. In addition to the regulatory costs, AAF estimates that Obamacare regulatory compliance has eaten up more than 60 million hours in paperwork. At 2,000 hours a year that comes to 30,000 jobs.

CONTINUED:  http://cowboybyte.com/13474/study-obamacare-regulations-have-dragged-27-6-billion-out-of-the-economy-killed-more-than-18000-jobs/

Message from Congressman Walter B Jones on HR 3408

Last week  I voted for H.R. 3408, legislation that would expand oil and gas drilling in the United States, approve the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil and lower gas prices.  The bill passed by a vote of 237 to 187 and now moves to the Senate for further consideration.  Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has announced its opposition to the provisions in H.R. 3408.

Among other things, H.R. 3408 would:

• open up Alaska’s Arctic Refuge (ANWR) for oil and gas exploration;
• require the federal government to issue a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada within 30 days;
• require new oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, and off the coasts of Virginia, California and Alaska; and, 
• require up to 37.5% of revenues from federal offshore oil and gas leases to be shared with coastal states within 200 miles of the leased land.

There are many reasons we have high gas prices today including unprecedented money printing by the Federal Reserve and other central banks, delayed action by federal regulators on requirements to set meaningful position limits to curb manipulation of oil and other commodity markets, and of course, the failure of the federal government to proceed with responsible development of the resources we have here at home. I have been, and will continue to be, outspoken about the need to address all of these issues. The bottom line is that this Administration cannot continue to stand by and do nothing while Americans are getting hurt at the pump. This is about jobs. It’s about getting our economy moving again. By approving the Keystone XL pipeline, opening ANWR and several offshore areas, and allowing revenue sharing with the states, the House bill is a step in the right direction and this Administration and Senate Democrats ought to support it.

Thanks,
Walter

Top 11 Big Government Busts Of 2011: #10

Here is a look at jobs that could have been but were blocked. Here’s the tale of the Keystone XL pipeline. See how this made our Top 11 Big Government Busts of 2011.  

http://netrightdaily.com/2011/12/top-11-big-government-busts-of-2011-10/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NetrightDaily+%28NetRight+Daily%29

Why Are Obama & Union Bosses Working to Destroy Companies & Jobs?

9/13/11

The question needs to be asked: Is it ignorance or malice? There was a time after the subprime mortgage meltdown when, if sound decisions on policy and financial initiatives had occurred, the American economy may not have been hobbled as badly, its credit rating might not have been downgraded, the recession might have been curtailed and so many Americans might not have been so negatively affected. However, rather than helping a recovery by letting the quasi-free market adjust, contract and expand again, at almost every turn, Barack Obama and the union appointees and crony capitalists within his administration are, whether out of malice or ignorance, seemingly doing everything they can to destroy an already fragile economy. It’s really no longer a question of ”if,” but “why.”


CONTINUED: 

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/09/13/why-are-obama-union-bosses-working-to-destroy-companies-jobs/

A MUST SEE!

John Stossel (Fox News) - "Battle for the Future"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UOJXGxLLM&feature=related (Pt. 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6hxe8zEJPw&feature=related (Pt. 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMI6H0p4cr8&feature=related (Pt. 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEgB0rcqgqo&feature=related (Are Americans Too Stupid to Vote)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI&feature=related (Insurance Makes Healthcare More Expensive)

Battle for The Future (partial transcript)

by John Stossel, Oct. 22, 2010, on FoxNews.com

For most of the life of America, and when it grew fastest, government spent just a few hundred dollars per person. Today, the federal government alone spends $10,000.

Politicians talk about cuts, but the cuts rarely happen. The political class always needs more.

I see the pressure. All day, Congress listens to people who say they need and deserve help.

The cost of any one program per taxpayer is small, but the benefits are concentrated on well-organized interest groups. It's tough for a weak politician to say no.

But maybe things are changing. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., believes that "more and more people in America are beginning to wake up to the fact that this thing is coming unglued."

I asked Ryan why his colleagues say it's OK to spend more. Are they just stupid? Don't they care? Or are they pandering for votes?

"Pandering could be a part of it," he said. "But ... they believe that the government should be far larger." They are taught that by the progressives who rule academia, like Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill.

"We have to make sure that the most vulnerable people are always protected," Hill says. Everyone benefits when we pay a little bit more to create universal health care. Everyone benefits when we pay a little more to have better public education systems."

Progressives use the word "we" too often. When I argued the that "we" and "government" are not the same, he said, "We always talk about the government like it's this monster in the hills that comes down and hands things out and takes our tax money."

Well, yes.

Those are "libertarian fairytales," Hill says. "In real life, the government is us."

Government is not "us." Well, it's us in the sense that we pay the bills. But it ain't us. It's them, the policy elite and their patrons.

What percent of the economy does Hill think government should be?

"For me, housing, health care and education, in addition to national defense, are things that the government must provide for people. So if that means 20 percent, I'm OK with it. If it means 30 percent, I'm OK with it.

I don't think it'll ever get that big."

Give me a break. It's already at 40 percent!

All that spending is taken from your and my pockets — some in taxes, much in sneakier ways like government borrowing. The national debt — now $13 trillion — simply represents future taxes or the erosion of the dollar.

Yet progressives want us to pay more. One woman activist told our camera, "It costs to live in a civilized society, and we all need to pay our fair share."

Our "fair share" sounds good. Progressives say taking from the rich to help the poor is simply fair.

I put that to Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.

"No, the fairest system is the one that rewards the makers in society as opposed to rewarding the takers in society."

Brooks wrote "The Battle," which argues that the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape our future.

"The way that our culture is moving now is toward more redistribution, toward more progressive taxation, exempting more people from paying anything, and loading more of the taxes onto the very top earners in our society."

But it seems "kind" to take it away from wealthier people and give it to those who need it more.

"Actually, it's not," Brooks says. "The government does not create wealth. It uses wealth that's been created by the private sector."

He warns that "Americans are in open rebellion today because the government is threatening to take us from a maker nation into taker nation status."

Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies. When I've said to tea partiers, "We should cut Medicare, eliminate agriculture subsidies, kill entire federal agencies," the enthusiasm usually fades from their eyes.

I hope that I am wrong and Brooks is right.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at http://www.johnstossel.com/





COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Employment Issues

Employment Issues


August 10, 2010

What's Holding Back The Hiring? Start With President Obama's Job Killers

President Obama claims that he's concerned about "jobs, jobs, jobs," but he has signed laws, issued executive orders and approved regulations that create incentives for private-sector employers to lay off people or delay hiring people. It's no wonder high unemployment persists, says Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Obama's top job killers include executive orders and regulations promoting compulsory unionism:

By gaining a bargaining monopoly in workplaces, labor unions have negotiated above-market compensation and benefits for their members, which has driven governments toward bankruptcy, priced unionized businesses out of markets and destroyed jobs.

Although Obama's card-check legislative initiative (to eliminate the secret ballot in union certification elections) stalled in Congress, he has pushed compulsory unionism by other means.

For example, in January 2009, Obama issued executive order 13496 promoting compulsory unionism among government contractors; the next month, he issued executive order 13502 requiring compulsory unionism for federal construction projects.

In March, Obama named Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board; Becker, formerly an attorney for the AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union, is pushing the NLRB to rewrite union certification rules, making it easier for unions to gain a bargaining monopoly in workplaces -- which would destroy more jobs.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare):

According to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, ObamaCare will hike taxes an estimated $15.2 billion, and the middle class will get whacked.

Moreover, employer mandates, taxes and penalties will reduce funds available for private-sector hiring.

The mandates, taxes and penalties kick in when an employer has more than 50 employees, and they apply to all employees, so one effect of the law is to discourage small businesses -- which create most American jobs -- from hiring more than 50 people.

If a business has 45 employees and it needs to hire eight more people for a total of 53 employees, but it doesn't offer health insurance or its insurance plan doesn't satisfy the latest ObamaCare regulations, hiring those eight additional people would entail a $2,000 penalty for each of the 53 employees -- a total of $106,000!

By increasing the cost of hiring people, increasing the cost of doing business, reducing after-tax returns from investment, and subsidizing unemployment, Obama is repeating FDR's misguided policies that prolonged high unemployment during the Great Depression, explains Powell.

Source: Jim Powell, "What's Holding Back The Hiring? Start With Obama's Top 10 Job Killers," Investor's Business Daily, August 10, 2010.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19680&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD


For text:



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=543080&p=4



For more on Employment Issues:



http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=30