Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Government’s Light Bulb Ban Is Just Plain Destructive
Heritage "But the politicians, as they typically do, failed to see the unintended consequences of this program. For example, CFLs use high levels of mercury, and exposure to mercury vapor is dangerous if the bulbs are broken. Hospitals and medical charities warn that CFL bulbs cause migraines and epilepsy attacks. Other critics point out that CFLs do not work well in colder temperatures, so they emit less heat, forcing Americans to use their heaters more and negating some of the energy savings. CFLs do not work well with dimmer switches, and the lifespan of the bulb diminishes when turned off and on frequently. Consumers are now hoarding incandescent bulbs in preparation for their phase-out as a result of their dissatisfaction with CFLs."
Politicizing the Law
National Review "Probably the most experienced trial attorney in the entire Civil Rights Division, Coates has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. At the Justice Department, he has brought numerous cases on behalf of Americans from every walk of life and every religious and ethnic background. In 2007, he earned the division’s second-highest award, the Walter Barnett Memorial Award for Excellence and Advocacy. He received numerous Special Achievement and Meritorious Performance Awards — some during the Clinton administration..
"Despite his unmatched experience and the accolades earned, January 5 was Coates’s last day as the chief of the Voting Section. An outsider who attended Coates’s going-away party the day before reports that a letter from the section’s historian read at the event said Coates deserved to be on a short list of the most well-known and well-respected civil-rights attorneys in the United States." Hans A. von Spakovsky
And then, there was that other committee designed to make us all ignore Mr. Coates' hearing.....
 |
| Glenn Foden, Townhall |
Walloping the Middle Class
WSJ "A family of four with an income of $45,000 would pay $2,083 more in taxes. Ouch. And that hard-working single mom, who Mr. Obama talks all the time? If she makes $40,000 a year, she will pay the IRS $1,607 a year more.
"Republicans are set to make the tax hit a big campaign issue in the next five weeks. Eric Cantor, the Republican Whip, tells me: "Democrats have always wanted to raise these tax rates on everyone -- not just the rich. I'm not surprised how this turned out." "
 |
| Eric Allie, Townhall |
Human rights hatchet job: Despicable UN council thugs defame Israel again
NY Daily News "And so, once more, Israel's enemies spin its unwillingness to commit national suicide as a crime against humanity. Will Obama stand for that?" |
| Ken Catalino, Townhall |
TARP II: Banks and Business Don't Want It
Larry Kudlow "An AP story quotes community bankers who do not want the Treasury Department or other federal agencies to own stock in their banks. They know the regulatory takeover risk that will come with this program. Next thing you know, the government will order banks to make unaffordable mortgages available to low-income folks, or perhaps force business loans on the basis of race or gender.
""We have taken a strategic decision not to have our primary regulator, the government, also be a partner in our bank," said William Chase Jr., CEO of Triumph Bank in Memphis, Tenn. The upshot is that Obama's whacky $30 billion mini-TARP is likely to be rejected by the vast majority of small banks. They took a look at the TARPed-up regulation overhanging the big banks, and they don't want any part of it."
Why the Democrat love affair with regulation?
""We have taken a strategic decision not to have our primary regulator, the government, also be a partner in our bank," said William Chase Jr., CEO of Triumph Bank in Memphis, Tenn. The upshot is that Obama's whacky $30 billion mini-TARP is likely to be rejected by the vast majority of small banks. They took a look at the TARPed-up regulation overhanging the big banks, and they don't want any part of it."
Why the Democrat love affair with regulation?
 |
| Mike Ramirez, Townhall |
On Bob Woodward’s Revelations
Max Boot "But I judge a president more by his actions than by his words. For all of Obama’s talk about an exit strategy, the fact remains that he has consistently stiffed those in his administration who favored a precipitous pullout. Now all the signals emanating from the administration suggest that the vaunted December policy review won’t amount to much and that we are unlikely to see a major drawdown next summer. Obama may talk exit strategies but his actions support General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy."
Emphasis added. We heartily endorse President Obama's actions regarding the Predator strikes.
Emphasis added. We heartily endorse President Obama's actions regarding the Predator strikes.
Education Reform’s Kryptonite
 |
| Legal Insurrection photo |
Obama: Not Rough Enough?
Brent Bozell "The liberals at NBC Universal want to hug Obama, too, with all the free airtime he wants. But first, they want him to put his every ounce of civility aside and pick up the mud bucket. Liberals can't maintain control of Washington without casting the conservatives as the incoming embodiment of all evil."
Watch NBC sitcoms and dramas and see how many times the characters take digs at Republicans.
Watch NBC sitcoms and dramas and see how many times the characters take digs at Republicans.
Taxing the Rich
John Stossel "Progressives want to raise taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year because they say it's wrong for the rich to be "given" more money. Sunday's New York Times carries a cartoon showing Uncle Sam handing money to a fat cat. They just don't get it.
"As I've said before, a tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some -- by force -- and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated."
"As I've said before, a tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some -- by force -- and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated."
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Part-Time, Partisan President to America: ‘Buck up!’
 |
| Mike Ramirez, Investors.com Pajamas Media " President Obama is quick to tell others how to think. The latest: In the face of polls showing Democrats vulnerable everywhere, the president is telling his liberal base to “buck up,” adding that their lack of enthusiasm for him and his record is “inexcusable.” " |
Policies Based on Illusion
Bruce S. Thornton "Yet for all of the efforts at a new beginning he made during his speech last year in Cairo, for all the “extended hands” and solicitous letters to Iranian leaders touting their religion and civilization, Obama has reaped little but contempt. Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, the failure of diplomatic imagination has blinded us to our enemy’s motives, leading us, as Conquest warned, to “policies based on illusions” — and putting our national security at risk."
THE COST OF REGULATION
Neal Boortz An astounding 35% of national income is spent on federal tax and compliance costs. And like I said before, small businesses are faring marginally worse. A report from the Office of Advocacy of the US Small Business Administration found that small businesses pay a disproportionately large share of regulatory costs. The initial overall cost in 2008 was $8,086 per employee. But ... "these costs were not borne equally by businesses of all sizes. The regulatory cost per employee for businesses with fewer than 20 employees was $10,585, compared with $7,454 for medium sized firms (employing between 20 and 499 employees), and $7,755 for large firms."
The Regulation Tax Keeps Growing The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008, a 3% real increase over five years, to about 14% of U.S. national income. This cost is in addition to the federal tax burden of 21%, for a combined cost of 35% of national income. One out of every three dollars earned in the U.S. goes to pay for or comply with federal laws and regulations, and new policies enacted in 2010 for health care and financial services will increase this burden.
Attempts have been made to estimate the costs of these laws and regulations, but the calculations are incomplete. In March, for example, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost and subsequent effect of health-care legislation on the federal budget deficit. These estimates did not consider the full compliance cost on businesses. The Regulatory Right to Know Act requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a cost-benefit analysis of federal rules and paperwork "to the extent feasible." So-called "non-major" rules are excluded in their 2009 report, however, as are rules adopted more than 10 years ago. This means that thousands of costly federal mandates are not included in OMB's tally. Discouragingly, OMB ignored the distribution of the regulatory burden, which is uneven.
In a report released last week for the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration, we find that small businesses bear a disproportionately large share of regulatory costs. The portion of these costs that falls initially on businesses overall was $8,086 per employee in 2008. But these costs are not borne equally by businesses of all sizes. Larger firms benefit from economies of scale in compliance; small businesses do not have that advantage.
As a consequence, small businesses—those with fewer than 20 employees—incur regulatory costs 42% greater than firms with between 20 and 499 employees, and 36% greater than firms with more than 500 employees. The regulatory cost per employee for small businesses was $10,585, compared to $7,454 for medium firms and $7,755 for large firms.
The degree to which federal regulations disadvantage small businesses varies across the economy. In some sectors, such as manufacturing, the regulatory cost difference between small businesses and their larger counterparts is particularly acute.
Small manufacturers bear compliance costs that are 110% higher than those of medium-sized firms and 125% higher than large firms' costs. As much as it is fashionable to blame China for the demise of small manufacturing in America, the evidence suggests that looking for some reasons closer to home is warranted.
In no category do small businesses pay less in regulatory costs than both medium and large businesses. In retail and wholesale trade, small businesses pay 13% less than medium firms but 15% more than large firms. In services, small businesses pay 13% more than medium firms but 9% less than large firms. In health care and "other" (the biggest components of which are utilities and construction), small businesses pay 45% and 70% more than medium firms and 28% and 83% more than large firms.
This distribution of regulatory costs places small firms at a substantial competitive disadvantage. The cost disadvantage confronting small business is driven by environmental regulations, tax compliance, and occupational safety and homeland security rules.
In sum, individuals and businesses bear the burden of the $1.75 trillion cost of regulations, and small businesses bear a disproportionately large share of the compliance costs. Businesses must close, reallocate activity, absorb, or pass on the expense of complying with regulatory requirements.
In per-household terms, the combined federal burden of regulation and taxes is a remarkable $37,962. Increased transparency in both the cost and benefit side of the regulatory equation is necessary to determine whether what we spend is worth the 35% of national income that it costs, and whether the distribution of the burden is relatively efficient. This is particularly true now that the federal government is undertaking Herculean efforts to stimulate the economy while increasing regulations costly to businesses. Wall Street Journal article.
Ms. Crain and Mr. Crain are economics professors at Lafayette College, and the authors most recently of "The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," published this month by the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
We have posted the entire article because all links take you to a mere excerpt.
The Regulation Tax Keeps Growing The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008, a 3% real increase over five years, to about 14% of U.S. national income. This cost is in addition to the federal tax burden of 21%, for a combined cost of 35% of national income. One out of every three dollars earned in the U.S. goes to pay for or comply with federal laws and regulations, and new policies enacted in 2010 for health care and financial services will increase this burden.
Attempts have been made to estimate the costs of these laws and regulations, but the calculations are incomplete. In March, for example, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost and subsequent effect of health-care legislation on the federal budget deficit. These estimates did not consider the full compliance cost on businesses. The Regulatory Right to Know Act requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a cost-benefit analysis of federal rules and paperwork "to the extent feasible." So-called "non-major" rules are excluded in their 2009 report, however, as are rules adopted more than 10 years ago. This means that thousands of costly federal mandates are not included in OMB's tally. Discouragingly, OMB ignored the distribution of the regulatory burden, which is uneven.
In a report released last week for the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration, we find that small businesses bear a disproportionately large share of regulatory costs. The portion of these costs that falls initially on businesses overall was $8,086 per employee in 2008. But these costs are not borne equally by businesses of all sizes. Larger firms benefit from economies of scale in compliance; small businesses do not have that advantage.
As a consequence, small businesses—those with fewer than 20 employees—incur regulatory costs 42% greater than firms with between 20 and 499 employees, and 36% greater than firms with more than 500 employees. The regulatory cost per employee for small businesses was $10,585, compared to $7,454 for medium firms and $7,755 for large firms.
The degree to which federal regulations disadvantage small businesses varies across the economy. In some sectors, such as manufacturing, the regulatory cost difference between small businesses and their larger counterparts is particularly acute.
Small manufacturers bear compliance costs that are 110% higher than those of medium-sized firms and 125% higher than large firms' costs. As much as it is fashionable to blame China for the demise of small manufacturing in America, the evidence suggests that looking for some reasons closer to home is warranted.
In no category do small businesses pay less in regulatory costs than both medium and large businesses. In retail and wholesale trade, small businesses pay 13% less than medium firms but 15% more than large firms. In services, small businesses pay 13% more than medium firms but 9% less than large firms. In health care and "other" (the biggest components of which are utilities and construction), small businesses pay 45% and 70% more than medium firms and 28% and 83% more than large firms.
This distribution of regulatory costs places small firms at a substantial competitive disadvantage. The cost disadvantage confronting small business is driven by environmental regulations, tax compliance, and occupational safety and homeland security rules.
In sum, individuals and businesses bear the burden of the $1.75 trillion cost of regulations, and small businesses bear a disproportionately large share of the compliance costs. Businesses must close, reallocate activity, absorb, or pass on the expense of complying with regulatory requirements.
In per-household terms, the combined federal burden of regulation and taxes is a remarkable $37,962. Increased transparency in both the cost and benefit side of the regulatory equation is necessary to determine whether what we spend is worth the 35% of national income that it costs, and whether the distribution of the burden is relatively efficient. This is particularly true now that the federal government is undertaking Herculean efforts to stimulate the economy while increasing regulations costly to businesses. Wall Street Journal article.
Ms. Crain and Mr. Crain are economics professors at Lafayette College, and the authors most recently of "The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," published this month by the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
We have posted the entire article because all links take you to a mere excerpt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)