Home / Regulation
Showing posts with label Regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Regulation. Show all posts
Cost of Government Day: Now July 15th?

Cost of Government Day: Now July 15th?

A new report from Americans for Tax Reform:
This year, Cost of Government Day (COGD), the day of the calendar year on which the average American has earned enough income to pay for the burdens imposed by government spending and regulation at the federal, state and local levels, falls on July 15.

This marks the second consecutive year in which COGD has fallen slightly earlier than the previous year. It is true that 2012 was not without victories for taxpayers—the 2010 elections ushered new advocates of limited government into Congress and statehouses across the country who quickly championed budget and spending reforms. However, the threat of bigger government is far from ameliorated; this year’s earlier COGD may be the last if policymakers don’t take seriously the lessons of the past year.

The 2012 Fiscal Year was remarkable in several ways. First, a protracted battle over spending levels resulted in the first net spending cut from previous year appropriations for the first time this decade. After three years of explosive discretionary spending baselines, this signaled a major shift in Washington’s spending-as-usual. . . .

Get ready for flood of regulations after election

A soft freeze just means that these regulations are piling up.
But now Obama’s making it tougher to put costly new rules in place. His enforcer: Cass Sunstein, an old buddy from their University of Chicago days whose friendship with the president gives him more clout in the West Wing than many advisers of higher rank. Sunstein has imposed what is essentially a soft freeze on new regulations.
Even though that’s not official policy, the administration has been increasingly frugal in issuing regulations, according to a POLITICO review of government data and more than two dozen interviews with current and former administration officials, lawmakers in both parties, business leaders and liberal activists. The analysis of the federal rule-making database shows Obama as of Tuesday had issued 1,004 final regulations since arriving in office. That’s fewer than his two immediate predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. This year, Obama is also on pace to put out the fewest “economically significant” regulations of any year in his presidency.
In classic Washington fashion, the administration’s slowdown of new rules is making liberals mad and winning Obama no credit from Republicans or the business community — especially not in an election year in which the over-regulator meme is so prevalent. . . .
UPDATE: The National Federation of Independent Businesses surely gets it (see stopthetidalwave.org).
Obama administration tries to soften image of CFPB

Obama administration tries to soften image of CFPB

From the WSJ's Political Diary:
. . . Mr. Cordray talks about why the CFPB brings enforcement officials to routine bank examinations. "I feel like that has been much misunderstood," Mr. Cordray says. "We want supervision examiners to understand the role of enforcement" and "the enforcement attorneys to understand the role of examination and supervision." That may be true, but it's not how any other federal banking regulator has ever done business, and for good reason. Regulators have to build trust with the regulated to encourage transparency and an open channel of communication, especially during times of crisis. The CFPB has done just the opposite by flexing its legal might. Mr. Cordray adds that he expects a "steady stream" of enforcement actions. Hmm. In part two of the American Banker series, Mr. Cordray addressed the financial industry's other big bugbear: the CFPB's recent release of a database of unverified consumer complaints against credit-card companies. "It's a free market of ideas," Mr. Cordray says, noting the database "puts pressure for everyone to compete with one another over customer service." Well, that's one interpretation. But credit-card companies have been fiercely competing with each other for decades, long before the CFPB came into existence. The release of unverified complaints—another unprecedented regulatory move—serves the interest of no one but trial lawyers looking to levy frivolous class-action lawsuits. Mr. Cordray says he understands industry's "concerns" and will "continue to listen to all sides in terms of how we can improve that database." How comforting. Mr. Cordray, like his predecessor, Elizabeth Warren, has aggressively argued that the CFPB is a force for good in the U.S. economy and that the lack of a serious congressional check on the agency is nothing to worry about. The American Banker series shows that those arguments, no matter how politely phrased, are far from settled.
Diminishing returns to increasing car MPG?

Diminishing returns to increasing car MPG?

The Eco adds apparently $1,600 to the price of the Malibu (with a sales tax of 7 percent that comes up to $1,712). Suppose that people spend about $2,900 on gas over the course of a year and that this 2 mpg increase represents a 7.7% increase (from 26 combined mpg to 28), it would take about 7.67 years to make up the $1,712 (and that assumes that the interest rate is zero).  A 3 percent interest rate will make it take about 10 years to pay this back.  Any repair costs would add to the number of years it would take before one breaks even.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

On the nonhybrid side, the poster car for conventional fuel-efficiency excellence is Chevrolet's own Cruze Eco, which returns a government-rated 28 m.p.g. in town and 42 on the highway without any electrical assistance. Instead, the Cruze Eco uses a small turbocharged engine, a manual transmission and old-fashioned tricks like lightweight forged wheels.
The Malibu Eco is a larger, more powerful car, but its mileage numbers are a long way off the nonhybrid Cruze, at 25 m.p.g. city and 37 m.p.g. highway. The Cruze Eco even has more trunk space than the Malibu Eco because there's no battery pack beneath the carpeting.
While the Environmental Protection Agency hasn't released final numbers for the new base Malibu, I can't imagine that the Eco will beat it by more than 2 m.p.g. For comparison, the old 4-cylinder Malibu netted a combined city-highway rating of 26 m.p.g., while the 2013 Eco returns 29 m.p.g. combined. The Camry Hybrid beats both Chevys with a combined rating of 41 m.p.g.
Even the 2013 Nissan Altima, with a conventional nonhybrid powertrain, improves on the Malibu Eco by 2 m.p.g., with a combined city-highway estimate of 31. . . . .
Obamacare already at 13,000 pages of regulations and they are just getting started

Obamacare already at 13,000 pages of regulations and they are just getting started

Well, this will certainly simplify health care.  From Fox News:
"Oh boy," Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute said. "HHS has a huge amount of work to do and the states do, too. . . ." The IRS, Health and Human Services and many other agencies will now write thousands of pages of regulations -- an effort well under way:
"There's already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they're not even done yet," Rehberg said. . . .
According to James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, federal powers will include designing insurance plans, telling people where they can go for coverage and how much insurers are allowed to charge.
"Really, how doctors and hospitals are supposed to practice medicine," he said.
The health department is still writing regulations, which can be controversial in and of themselves. . . .
So who really wants a "top down" economy?

So who really wants a "top down" economy?

It is becoming a constant theme in Obama's talks that Republicans want to run the economy from the top down.  You would think that the press would realize that government mandates and central planning are the ultimate "top down" way to run things.  Obama obviously doesn't understand this, but companies don't dictate to consumers what they will buy.  


I heard another speech today that said virtually the same thing, but here is something that he said on Friday.
The Republicans who run Congress, the man at the top of their ticket, they don’t agree with any of the proposals I just talked about.  They believe the best way to grow the economy is from the top down. So they want to roll back regulations, and give insurance companies and credit card companies and mortgage lenders even more power to do as they please. They want to spend $5 trillion on new tax cuts -- including a 25-percent tax cut for every millionaire in the country.  And they want to pay for it by raising middle-class taxes and gutting middle-class priorities like education and training and health care and medical research. . . .


Here is a similar claim from his big economic address a couple of weeks ago in Cleveland.
Governor Romney and his allies in Congress believe deeply in the theory that we tried during the last decade -- the theory that the best way to grow the economy is from the top down.  So they maintain that if we eliminate most regulations, if we cut taxes by trillions of dollars, if we strip down government to national security and a few other basic functions, then the power of businesses to create jobs and prosperity will be unleashed, and that will automatically benefit us all.  . . . 


UPDATE: Here is what I heard from his speech today (June 25th) at the Oyster River High School in Durham, New Hampshire.
I believe they’re wrong.  I believe their policies were tested, and they failed.  (Applause.)  And that -- my belief is not just based on some knee-jerk partisan reaction.  It’s based on the fact that we tried it.  And you look at our economic history.  In this country, prosperity has never come from the top down.  It comes from a strong and growing middle class.  (Applause.)  It comes from successful, thriving small businesses. (Applause.) . . . 

Very cheap, energy efficient transportation, and the government wants to kill it

Personally, I don't care about "energy efficient" transportation per se.  I figure that the market will figure out the most efficient way to transport people and energy costs are no more important than other costs.  Yet, it seems more than a little hypocritical for the government to try making this type of transportation so difficult and costly.

Let's say you wanted to get from New York to DC this evening. You could take the government-supported train system - which would cost you $153 or more - or you could take a bus, which gets no government subsidies, for... $19. . . .
[These buses] are now, as CATO transportation expert Randal O'Toole puts it, "the nation's fastest growing transportation mode." He adds:
"They do so with almost no subsidies... Intercity buses are safe and environmentally friendly, suffering almost 80 percent fewer fatalities per passenger mile than Amtrak and using 60 percent less energy per passenger mile than Amtrak." . . .
I did a quick search and I found that for this coming Monday the average Megabus fare is $14.73.  The average Amtrak fare is $160.



If you want to see more on the efficiency of these buses, this is of some use.
Using government to harass political opponents

Using government to harass political opponents

From Curt Levey at Fox News:
Groups on the left are also turning to the judicial branch to harass conservative opponents. . . .
a Media Matters internal memo suggesting the organization “look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News … I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground.” In other words, Media Matters couldn’t identify anything that Fox did wrong but hoped the right lawyer could invent something.
Lawfare’s most persistent practitioner is probably Brett Kimberlin, founder of the radical Justice Through Music Project. He has targeted conservative bloggers like Andrew Breitbart, Patterico, Aaron Worthing, and Liberty Chick, in part, by filing over 100 harassment claims against them in various courts.
Kimberlin claims that blogging the truth about his criminal record – which includes 17 years in federal prison for a weeklong bombing spree – constitutes harassment because it results in angry emails from the blogger’s readers. . . .
In addition to the courts and White House, the left is turning to various agencies in the Obama administration for help in intimidating their opponents. Angered by the American Legislative Exchange Council’s support of "Stand Your Ground" laws, left-wing groups are coordinating a campaign against ALEC, which includes an IRS complaint challenging its tax-exempt status. . . .
EPA requires oil refiners to use hypothetical fuel

EPA requires oil refiners to use hypothetical fuel

Government tells companies to invent a particular nonexistent fuel and use it in production.  No notion of how much the fuel will cost to invent or even if it is possible to invent.  From Fox News:

. . . "As ludicrous as that sounds, it's fact," says Charles Drevna, who represents refiners. "If it weren't so frustrating and infuriating, it would be comical."
And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, "the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild."
Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005, assuming that someone would make it. Seven years later, no one has.
"None, not one drop of cellulosic ethanol has been produced commercially. It's a phantom fuel," says Pyle. "It doesn't exist in the market place."
And Charles Drevna adds, "forcing us to use a product that doesn't exist, they might as well tell us to use unicorns."
And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines. . . .
Government created drops in drug production

Government created drops in drug production

Have you wondered why there seems to be shortages of important medical drugs?  Well, it appears that the answer is actually pretty straightforward.  From the Washington Examiner:

President Obama's Food and Drug Administration has caused "a public health crisis" -- a prescription drug shortage over the past two years -- by increasing the number of threats issued to raid and close drug manufacturing plants, according to House investigators.
"This shortage appears to be a direct result of over-aggressive and excessive regulatory action," House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said  . . .
The committee report concluded that a significant portion of the drug shortage is a problem of the Obama administration's making. "Among shuttered manufacturing lines that occurred over the previous two years, the committee’s review did not find any instances where the shutdown was associated with reports of drugs harming customers," the report says, noting a 30 percent drop in the manufacture of certain prescription drugs at the largest manufacturers in the country. . . .
The FDA sent just 474 such letters in 2009, but that number spiked to 1720 in 2011. "A common sense approach to regulations must be restored at the FDA," the committee report advised . . . .
Banning sodas is a lot different than refusing to let government money subsidize their purchase

Banning sodas is a lot different than refusing to let government money subsidize their purchase

5% of food stamps supposedly go to sodas.  Instead of regulating everyone's intake of sodas, why not ban letting food stamp dollars being spent on them?
food stamps, makes up about $80 billion of the $100 billion a year cost of the farm bill, providing aid to some 46 million people. . . .
From the Washington Post:

The 42 million Americans receiving federal food stamps use those benefits to buy $4 billion of soda every year, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. . . .
Thank minimum wages: "More than seven in 10 US teens jobless in summer"

Thank minimum wages: "More than seven in 10 US teens jobless in summer"

Government is making it very hard for younger people to get jobs.  The lack of training will impact them long into the future.  From Fox News:

Fewer than three in 10 American teenagers now hold jobs such as running cash registers, mowing lawns or busing restaurant tables from June to August. The decline has been particularly sharp since 2000, with employment for 16-to-19-year olds falling to the lowest level since World War II.
And teen employment may never return to pre-recession levels, suggests a projection by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The drop in teen employment, steeper than for other age groups, is partly a cultural shift. More youths are spending summer months in school, at music or learning camps or in other activities geared for college. . . .
Do you want evidence of the impact of minimum wage laws?
But the decline is especially troubling for teens for whom college may be out of reach, leaving them increasingly idle and with few options to earn wages and job experience. Older workers, immigrants and debt-laden college graduates are taking away lower-skill work as they struggle to find their own jobs in the weak economy. Upper-income white teens are three times as likely to have summer jobs as poor black teens, sometimes capitalizing on their parents' social networks for help.
Overall, more than 44 percent of teens who want summer jobs don't get them or work fewer hours than they prefer. . . .
Newest piece at National Review Online: Bloomberg’s Soda Ban

Newest piece at National Review Online: Bloomberg’s Soda Ban

My newest piece starts this way:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to ban sugary soft drinks larger than 16 ounces. He believes that by this measure he can reduce obesity. But plenty of evidence indicates that he will fail. The ban will inconvenience people and waste their time, but it will not make them thinner.  
Bloomberg didn’t originate this type of idea. Public schools, which hold their students captive for much of their day, have tried a similar approach to making students lose weight. And some have gone further than Bloomberg’s limit on cup size and have banned such drinks completely. But even complete bans haven’t worked. Students simply drink more sugary drinks after school. According to an article in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior analyzing data for Maine, “keeping such drinks out of teenagers’ reach during school hours may not be enough.” . . .
Michelle Obama supports Bloomberg's ban. 
she said, "We applaud anyone who's stepping up to think about what changes work in their communities. New York is one example." . . .
Banks pressured to buy sovereign debt: When will government realize the problems from forcing banks to make risky loans?

Banks pressured to buy sovereign debt: When will government realize the problems from forcing banks to make risky loans?

Government forces banks to lend money to risky borrowers.  Now they force banks to lend money to governments.  When will the government learn that forcing banks to take on more risk than they want causes problems?  From CNBC:

US and European regulators are essentially forcing banks to buy up their own government's debt—a move that could end up making the debt crisis even worse, a Citigroup analysis says.
Regulators are allowing banks to escape counting their country's debt against capital requirements and loosening other rules to create a steady market for government bonds, the study says.
While that helps governments issue more and more debt, the strategy could ultimately explode if the governments are unable to make the bond payments, leaving the banks with billions of toxic debt, says Citigroup strategist Hans Lorenzen.
"Captive bank demand can buy time and can help keep domestic yields low," Lorenzen wrote in an analysis for clients. "However, the distortions that build up over time can sow the seeds of an even bigger crisis, if the time bought isn't used very prudently." . . .
"New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks"

"New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks"

So you ban large soft drinks. Will that reduce the amount that people drink of soft drinks?  Probably.  Sure, there are substitute ways of drinking it -- get two drinks (though not as easy to carry).  Will it get people to switch large milk shakes?  What is next?  Limits on portion size?  Mayor Bloomberg strikes again.  From the NY Times:

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.
The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.
“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall. . . .
Liberals want to keep out of people's bedrooms?
To Obama, not all businesses are bad, not if they are run by Democrats

To Obama, not all businesses are bad, not if they are run by Democrats

Demonizing businessmen?  Obama saying nice things about Democratically run firms:

In the early days of his administration, Obama praised JPMorgan as an example of a well-run bank. “You know, keep in mind, though there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed, JPMorgan being a good example, Jamie Dimon, the CEO there, I don’t think should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio,” Obama told ABC News in February 2009.  . . . .
In the past, Dimon has been an ardent opponent of tighter regulations on banks. And he’s been able to do so in part because he had outsized sway with Democrats in both Congress and the White House.
In the early days of his administration, Obama praised JPMorgan as an example of a well-run bank. “You know, keep in mind, though there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed, JPMorgan being a good example, Jamie Dimon, the CEO there, I don’t think should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio,” Obama told ABC News in February 2009. . . . .
Why the government shouldn't own the broadcasting airwaves

Why the government shouldn't own the broadcasting airwaves

Remember Lyndon Johnson:

That federal agency soon limited licenses to restrict competition and guarantee profits for selected license holders in key markets. It made complicated regulations that required expensive lawyers and consultants. It also seemed to grant and revoke (or threaten to revoke) broadcast licenses in ways that advanced the careers of certain politicians with ties to the FCC.
One of them was Lyndon Johnson. He was broke when he was first elected to Congress in 1937. But within 12 years, he was one of the richest and most powerful members of the U.S. Senate. He got his wealth when his wife bought a cheap radio station – that quickly became the most powerful and profitable station in Texas – after getting FCC permits nobody else could get. . . .
Now under the Obama administration we have this:
 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski testified Wednesday that his agency takes calls to cancel Fox's broadcast licenses "very seriously."  Groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), have urged the FCC to pull Fox's licenses because of evidence that its parent company News Corp. hacked people's phones in the United Kingdom to get stories.  During a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) pressed Genachowski on whether he plans to do anything about the allegations. Genachowski said it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on a specific case, but that the commission is "certainly aware of the serious issues that have been raised in the U.K."  He noted that the law requires that the FCC only grant broadcast licenses to people of "good character." . . .
Does anyone think that the Obama administration can keep politics out of this?  Even if the licenses aren't revoked, does the threat produce a chilling effect? If people don't trust Fox, they can obviously stop watching the network.
More on Obama as Thug: Why campaign donations should be anonymous

More on Obama as Thug: Why campaign donations should be anonymous

Would Obama have attacked these people if they had given to him?  Obviously, not.  From Kim Strassel at the WSJ:

This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them. . . .
The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents. . . .

Increasing support for gun ownership

Source: Pew Research Center.
Currently, 49% of Americans say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45% say it is more important to control gun ownership. Opinion has been divided since early 2009, shortly after Barack Obama’s election. From 1993 through 2008, majorities had said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)