"Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
Alexander Hamilton

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Counting Regulations and Orders

More to be grateful for? said.."While millions of Americans prepare to stuff themselves with Turkey and pie, the Obama administration quietly released its plans for 2,224 federal rules Friday — a preview of just how many more regulations the president is attempting to issue before he leaves office...."

I did a little research on this topic ( Federal regulations and rules) and quickly came upon this document from the Congressional Research Service  entitled: Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations,and Pages in the Federal Register.

What are we talking about when discussing federal rulemaking? From the document above: "Federal rulemaking is an important mechanism through which the federal government implements policy. Federal agencies issue regulations pursuant to statutory authority granted by Congress. Therefore, Congress may have an interest in performing oversight of those regulations, and measuring federal regulatory activity can be a useful way for Congress to conduct that oversight. The number of federal rules issued annually and the total number of pages in the Federal Register are often referred to as measures of the total federal regulatory burden."

The tone of the blog comment was that there is something unusual or surreptitious about President Obama's administration putting forth Federal rules. The truth is that this is a very common and normal process for all administrations. Like it or not, this is simply how the Federal government works.

According to this article in BloombergBusiness:

  • Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame,
  • The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms. In part that’s because $100 million in past years was worth more than it is now due to inflation, 
  • The record came in 1992 under George H.W. Bush when that total hit $20.9 billion in current dollars. In the last year of Ronald Reagan’s term it was $16 billion in today’s dollars.
  • On a global scale, the U.S. is one of the best places to do business, with rules allowing new businesses to be set up in just six days and strong protections for investors, according to a World Bank report released Oct. 19. Of 183 countries surveyed, the U.S. ranks behind just Singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand in the ease of doing business, the World Bank said.

 In a similar manner, there has been a lot of misinformation about Executive Orders. One of the more outrageous I read was that " President Obama has issued a whopping 923 executive orders, many of which give the government unprecedented power to take over control of civilian institutions and create marshall law. "   The following is from the American Presidency Project through Obama's first term:

The actual number of orders is nowhere near 923. The content of orders issued are not particularly unusual for any President. While you may not agree with some or even all of them, every recent President has used them and all have had their own controversies.
I have a great many disagreements with the Obama administration as I had also with the previous Bush administration. I choose however to not be drawn into the maelstrom of conspiracy and extremism.
I read a letter the other day in the Laconia Daily Sun by Tony Boutin. I have never agreed with his writings, but I did wholeheartedly agree with  part of this one as it relates to extremism. He wrote " If Republicans say, "white, hard and small is the solution," Democrats will retort black, soft and huge must be the solution. Neither party acknowledges the middle of the road where the best solutions are almost always found. It is also where the majority of Americans continually say their politics lie. Unfortunately it is the noisy extremes of both parties that grab all the headlines. Trump and Sanders reflect this today. Both men draw out-sized media coverage because they represent extremes. This diabolical political arrangement produces a failed outcome on every issue of importance. The extremes don't want common sense. They want a pound of flesh from the other guy while compromising nothing. "


Fred Van Magness said...

Your points are well taken. From my perspective, the last sentence says it all. In DC, the art of compromise is a lost art. I have seen it decline....the losses of people like Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, and many others who governed with compromise has paralyzed the process. It was better to get most of a solution that they wanted before holding out for every last word. These folks excelled in that art. Of late, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have held a strong wall of resistance to almost everything....a do it my way or take the highway philosophy. That is at least one root of the problem. Not everything is so black and white that a good compromise could not be worked out. When you see votes on various bills, they are mostly along solid party lines. This is not what America wants in government. Just look at the Keystone pipeline bill...passed by both houses of Congress but vetoed by Obama....one person overriding the will of the people's house. Indeed, compromise is what is truly lost and what is sorely needed to move the country forward. As I said at the beginning, you are spot on with the last sentence. We need new leaders who can work across the isle for the good of the country regardless of a R, D, or I next to their name. Maybe what we need is an "A" after all the names...American ! Thanks for the equal and balanced article.

Joseph Cormier said...

"The extremes don't want common sense. They want a pound of flesh from the other guy while compromising nothing. "

Have to agree!

Some of us think of ourselves, as "independent voters" ... i.e., not Republican, nor Democrat. "No Labels" group is somewhat along those lines, butt (sic) ... (I did go to the No Labels convention in Concord).

Blogger provided some good info. One of the cable talking-head shows had done a similar take, a while back.

The one point that is missed, I feel, is with directives that are "unconstitutional", as opposed to "directives" in-toto. Now we can argue about who nominated whom, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and which way do they lean, or who they suckered.

Regulations by the governments, all of 'em (including local) are a manifestation of their superior knowledge in what is needed ... whether you think you need it or not. You believe that, and you're probably a Republican or Democrat.

Here's a couple of dated links, but see if you can apply to the 2016 elections! There's no incumbent ... or is there?



Over-Regulation is Killing Our Economy said...

"The tone of the blog comment was that there is something unusual or surreptitious about President Obama's administration putting forth Federal rules. The truth is that this is a very common and normal process for all administrations. Like it or not, this is simply how the Federal government works."

Did you read the full article and links? The article was not necessarily about the number of executive orders but their costs.

"The Environmental Protection Agency estimated its stricter smog limits would only cost Americans $1.4 billion a year, but a new report argues the total cost to the economy is likely 40 times higher than agency estimates."

"EPA finalized stricter ozone standards earlier this year, forcing states to lower ambient levels from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion."

"Manufacturing groups have come out against stricter ozone rules, arguing it would hamper jobs and economic growth. Critics also note that not all U.S. counties are even in compliance with EPA’s 2008 standard, and a stricter standard would only cause more economic harm."

"Critics argue the rule is one of the costliest in U.S. history, likely to cost billions of dollars every year and harm economic growth."

Over regulation is killing our economy. American companies are leaving the U.S in droves for countries with less regulations and they're taking American jobs with them. Millions of people lost their homes and jobs during the last recession. The majority of them are still struggling to recover. More government regulations will hinder not help them.

Terence C. Jatko said...

I agree with Over-Regulation: It's not necessarily the gross number of regulations but the scope and costs of each. A comparison based on sheer numbers is meaningless.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

I doubt you would want to work in China where air pollutants are virtually unchecked and the small particle pollution is 40 times over the international safety limit. http://www.boredpanda.com/pollution-china/

Joseph Cormier said...

There's another "global ... oooppps ... climate change" summit happening.
I'm not going to debate, here, climate change ... I believe there always has been climate change. " Global warming" is another matter. Some of us can remember the gas lines, in the 70's, and hearing on the car radio (AM/FM not Sirius) and listening about the pending Ice Age.


Whatever happened to the Russian scientists studying the effects of activity on the sun, and how it effects our planet?


I guess everything is relative.

"China, for instance, has improved efficiency an average of 3.7 percent a year since it began its economic reform program in 1979. Similarly, adopting world market prices for energy could help clear the air in the Soviet Union."


I just picked a link, and there are many more about world pollution.

Pollution is real, and can be corrected. Some of us remember the Merrimack River, where pollution was so bad, you could almost walk on it ... and you wouldn't be confused with Jesus!

Let's hope our worldwide governmental giants, don't turn out to be mental midgets. Let's hope they don't confuse issues for political gain. I haven't mentioned Bernie or Hillary or Rubio or the Donald or ... ad infinitum!

Terence C. Jatko said...

"I doubt you would want to work in China where air pollutants are virtually unchecked and the small particle pollution is 40 times over the international safety limit. http://www.boredpanda.com/pollution-china/"

Please! This is another "if you don't like over-regulation you're in favor of dirty air and water" false argument. Nobody is advocating dirtier air or water; the air and water in this country is MUCH cleaner than it was thirty years ago. This is like liberals arguing that George Bush wanted to add arsenic the water supply when he balked at decreasing allowable standards to unrealistic levels. Just because someone resists unreasonable standards doesn't mean they favor pollution. Grow up.

By the way, China has agreed to reduce their air pollution levels to some unspecified level by 2030, while Obama is attempting to saddle the American coal industry with virtually unobtainable pollution standards.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

You have actually read way too much into my comment. I made no such argument, you did. The point was and still is, that extremism solves nothing. No regulation vs too much and you have two very different extremes and consequences.

Anonymous said...

Blogger, who's talking about NO regulations? The comment was OVER regulation. You think extremism solves nothing? On that we agree but you're preaching to the choir......it's the guy in the Oval office that didn't get the memo.

Joseph Cormier said...

“China plans to launch satellites to monitor its greenhouse gas emissions as the country, estimated to be the world's top carbon emitter, steps up its efforts to cut such emissions, official news agency Xinhua said on Monday.”


Sure ... launch satellites to monitor greenhouse gases! Sounds more like the gas that comes out of Washington, and will probably come out of the Paris summit.

Do you think these satellites are multi-purpose? Maybe they can keep an eye on the county budget!

Terence C. Jatko said...

Meanwhile, the rest of the world comes together to waste time and attempt to bilk US taxpayers for imaginary problems due to "climate change".


The picture on the Drudge Report is telling: Obama standing there grinning like an idiot while the world burns with Islamic terrorism.

Follow the Money said...

A better name for the Paris Protocol would be Transfer of the Wealth of Nations.

There’s another clear agenda for most of the developing countries attending the Paris Protocol. And it involves a different kind of green.

Climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020. The goal of this fund: to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris agreement.

In the end, it may amount to nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme. The money may not even fund the politically preferred energy sources demanded by proponents of a climate fund.


Anonymous said...

The Daily Signal, a mouthpiece for the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation. Many ultra right groups picked up on the same talking points and it is splashed across the 'net. Must be true because its on the internet, eh?
For your information , the Green Climate Fund was created in 2010 and most of the funding committments are from private funding.

Political Science said...

Quite typical. Heaven forbid any research done before posting a load of blather.

Joseph Cormier said...

WiKi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
"... the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Ya ... I know ... not a real encyclopedia.

Where/who accumulates "real" info?
The media?! It does so much better, to educate the ignorant. Yes, my tongue is in my cheek.

"The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is a fund within the framework of the UNFCCC ..."

"The GCF is based in the new Songdo district of Incheon, South Korea. It is governed by a Board of 24 members and initially supported by a Secretariat."

"The Green Climate Fund will support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties using thematic funding windows’.[1] It is intended to be the centrepiece of efforts to raise Climate Finance of $100 billion a year by 2020."

"The process of designing the GCF has raised several issues. These include ongoing questions on how funds will be raised,[13] the role of the private sector,[14] the level of "country ownership" of resources,[15] and the transparency of the Board itself.[16] In addition, questions have been raised about the need for yet another new international climate institution which may further fragment public dollars that are put toward mitigation and adaptation annually.[17]"

References are stated.


Wiki is not the Bible, Torah, Koran, or any other divine inspiration. It is one of many publications, to be scrutinized, and not meant to be lemming food.

Tests found coal burning to be to blame for the bulk of the latest pollution surge, said...


Joseph Cormier said...

Beijing is only one city.
Please ... no refugees from Beijing to MOBO!

How many coal plants per day being built?

Next China five year plan


Anonymous said...

Guess many did not read the actual posting.
President Obama has the fewest.
You actually have to look at the numbers.

Turn off the lights....... said...

Guess many did not read the actual posting? Maybe because so many are still in SHOCK after reading their electric bills! Yes, my electric costs have "necessarily skyrocketed." Thank you President Obama.....not!

Moultonboro Blogger said...

According to the NH Electric Coop: "At its September 29 meeting, the NHEC Board of Directors approved increases effective with bills rendered November 1st for the Co-op Power and Regional Access Charge portions of members’ bills. As a result, the typical residential member using 500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month will see an overall bill increase of 18%, or $16.30 per month for the winter period, which ends April 30, 2016.
Though the winter period rate increase is significant, it comes on the heels of a summer period that saw rates drop 20% from the 2014 winter period price. Overall, the typical residential member using 500 kWh per month will be paying 4.5% less than last winter."

Off the Grid said...

DHARNAI, India -- One year ago, environmentalists hailed this tiny village as the future of clean energy in rural India. Today, it is powered by coal.

Dharnai, a community of about 3,200 people in eastern India's Bihar state, had been without electricity for three decades. So when activists with Greenpeace set up a solar-powered microgrid in July of 2014, the excitement was palpable. But, residents said, the problems started almost immediately.

When the former chief minister of Bihar state visited to inaugurate the grid, villagers lined up to protest, chanting, "We want real electricity, not fake electricity!"

By "real," they meant power from the central grid, generated mostly using coal. By "fake," they meant solar.

At present, solar power in Dharnai costs at least three times as much as grid power. It can support only expensive energy-efficient appliances, such as CFL bulbs. A CFL bulb in India costs 700 rupees ($10), while an incandescent bulb costs 10 rupees (15 cents).

Read the the rest of the story..........



Anonymous said...

I'm not seeing the point Off the Grid.

Joseph Cormier said...

If this thread gets any longer, blogger will be counting number of posts. Here's my last one (a collective "phew" is heard) on this thread.

"The Green Tech Solution" by David Brooks, of the NY Times, that pillar of conservative views (he says with a grin)!


For those of us that like reading the source documents for the author's piece, click on the underlined text that are color-highlighted.

PS: Any "news" on the NH COOP solar farm off the Neck road? Might be another thread.

incredulous said...

dear friends, are there any sane people running for president? Any honest ones? ANyone? Trump spews boldface lies, Cruz thinks that most violent criminals are democrats, Sanders thinks that the rich should support the not so rich, Rubio has even less experience than Obama, Clinton has too much baggage and on and on it rolls, where it stops nobody knows. Who is really qualified to lead this nation?

Anonymous said...

The "God Father" of the climate change movement is dead.

"Paris, COP21 Climate Summit – One of the most dangerous men of the Twentieth Century has just died: and the weird thing is, hardly anyone noticed.

His name was Maurice Strong a Canadian billionaire, diplomat and UN apparatchik, and though you may not have heard of him, he probably did more to make your world a more expensive, inconvenient, overregulated, hectored, bullied, lied-to, sclerotic, undemocratic place than anyone post Hitler, Stalin and (his personal friend) Mao.

He’s the reason, for example, that most of the world’s leaders, 40,000 delegates and their attendant carbon mega-footprint descended here on Paris yesterday in order to talk about magical fairy dust for two weeks and then charge you $1.5 trillion (that’s per year, by the way) for the privilege.

He’s the reason that “climate change” is now so heavily embedded within our system of global governance that it is now almost literally impossible for any politician or anyone else whose career depends on the state to admit that’s it not a problem and to argue that there are more important issues in the world, like maybe the terrorism that killed over 130 innocent people just the other week now, where was it?- oh yeah, here in Paris where for some bizarre reason all the delegates are talking about carbon emissions instead…"


Anonymous said...

Andrew Breitbart died March 1 2012 and hardly anyone noticed that either. Takk about dangerous men.