Heritage ..."A variety of major rules have been parked in prolonged “review” by the White House, while the regulatory agenda required by statute has failed to materialize—twice. This flouting of the law is disturbing enough, but it’s made worse by the mounting regulatory uncertainty that has ensued."
....
"A variety of major rules have been parked in prolonged “review” by the White House, while the regulatory agenda required by statute has failed to materialize—twice. This flouting of the law is disturbing enough, but it’s made worse by the mounting regulatory uncertainty that has ensued.
"President Obama has ignored both the April 2012 and October 2012 agenda deadlines. The last agenda from the Administration, with 2,676 regulations, was published in fall 2011. The President’s neglect of the law contradicts his promise of an “unprecedented level of openness in government transparency.” "
Want to see some of the regulations that impact the economy? Check these out:
•A Department of Transportation rule to require a rear-view camera and video display for all new cars and trucks, at an estimated cost of up to $2.7 billion.
•Revisions to the so-called Boiler MACT rules that impose stricter limits on industrial and commercial boilers and incinerators. The EPA pegged the cost of its original proposal at $9.5 billion, but independent analysts estimated the cost to be as much as $20 billion.
•Energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers as well as commercial refrigeration, which would apply to virtually all equipment used in retail food stores. This is estimated by the Department of Energy to increase manufacturing costs by $500 million over four years.
•Department of Labor restrictions on worker exposure to crystalline silica (fine particles of sand common to mining, manufacturing and construction). One analysis submitted to OIRA by engineering and economic consultants estimated compliance costs would be $5.5 billion annually, the loss of 17,000 “person-years” of employment, and $3.1 billion of economic output each year.
I dread the economic damage a "Secretary of Business" would do. On the surface, combining nine or so different departments into one has much to commend it if it were established by a conservative who understood business and economics. But today's socialist Democrats are the last people I'd want to see having absolute authority over the free market and decisions made by businesses. I have much more trust in the abilities of Mitt Romney and here is what he has to say on this subject:
Romney blasts Obama's 'secretary of business' plan as just another layer of government "Republican running mate Paul Ryan, in Greeley, Colo., also mocked Obama on Thursday for the proposal. He said the country already has a secretary of business. "It's called the secretary of commerce," he said."
