Obama’s proposed regs would cost billions annually

[luckytxn 2,265]

May Obama the Socialist is just an evil person.

President Obama told Speaker John A. Boehner in a letter Tuesday that his administration is considering seven regulations that would cost the U.S. economy more than $1 billion per year, although he added that these rules are “merely proposed.”

“Before finalizing any of them, we will take account of public comments and concerns and give careful consideration to cost-saving possibilities and alternatives,” Mr. Obama wrote to the Ohio Republican.

Mr. Boehner wrote to the president last Friday, asking for an accounting of proposed rules that would cost more than $1 billion annually. “The economy cannot withstand the barrage of major new federal regulations planned by the administration,” Mr. Boehner said.

When they return to work in Washington next week, House Republicans plan to focus on cutting government red tape as a way to promote job creation.

The president listed four proposed Environmental Protection Agencyrules and three in the Department of Transportation as having the high potential cost. An EPA regulation on air quality standards could cost between $19 billion and $90 billion per year. All told, the seven proposed rules cited by Mr. Obama would cost companies at least $38 billion per year.

The administration has been sparring with industry and congressional Republicans over cutting government regulations for most of Mr. Obama’s presidency. In his letter, Mr. Obama argued that his administration has already cut red tape that will save more than $10 billion over the next five years.

The president also said the cost of “final, economically significant rules” were higher in the final two years of the administration of Republican George W. Bush than in the first two years of Mr. Obama’s administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has questioned the administration’s tally.

Mr. Boehner said the administration’s regulatory agenda includes at least 219 proposed rules with a projected economic impact of at least $100 million, which he said runs counter to the president’s stated desire to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Sponsored Link: While investigating a wild rumor, an American woman recently spent 6 nights in Zurich. She claims to have found an incredible opportunity. A way to make a fortune in gov’t-issued gold bullion, even if gold prices never budge. Details here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

$1 Billion? That's a lot. Of course, in a $ 14,500 Billion economy, it's 0.007% or 7 cents on every $1,000.00. What a burden!

Regulations cost money. What else is new? On the other hand, regulations also create jobs which is most of what this cost represents. There are regulations - not Obama regulations, by the way, but Bush and GOP regulations from the last decade - that have increased the size of one of the departments where I work from a staff of 100 to a staff of 1,000. That costs money. It also puts a lot of people to work making decent salaries and enjoying a full set of benefits. But jobs are bad, I know. Nobody needs jobs.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[luckytxn 2,265]

$1 Billion? That's a lot. Of course, in a $ 14,500 Billion economy, it's 0.007% or 7 cents on every $1,000.00. What a burden!

Regulations cost money. What else is new? On the other hand, regulations also create jobs which is most of what this cost represents. There are regulations - not Obama regulations, by the way, but Bush and GOP regulations from the last decade - that have increased the size of one of the departments where I work from a staff of 100 to a staff of 1,000. That costs money. It also puts a lot of people to work making decent salaries and enjoying a full set of benefits. But jobs are bad, I know. Nobody needs jobs.

Maybe you better brush up the reading comprehension. Read all the way. They are conservatively estimating the costs at 100 billion or more.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Maybe you better brush up the reading comprehension. Read all the way. They are conservatively estimating the costs at 100 billion or more.

Perhaps the Washington Times staff writers ought to brush up on their reporting skills. They are all over the map with their cost predictions starting off with a grand total of $1 Billion for seven regulations which then goes to estimates between $19 Billion to $90 Billion (some estimate) for just one regulation to some $38 billion dollars for supposedly the same seven regulations that were initially reported to cost $1 Billion then coming up with a $100 million tag for some 219 regulations altogether. All over the map. It's what happens when you don't report facts or don't understand what you're reporting or when you report for people that can't really read or comprehend to begin with the latter probably being what this poor reporting is attributable to since no sane person actually consumes the Washington Times.

Which brings me to the point that perhaps you ought to brush up on your reading skills. See, there isn't a single mention of $100 Billion in that piece of ####### article you posted. Not one.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[luckytxn 2,265]

Perhaps the Washington Times staff writers ought to brush up on their reporting skills. They are all over the map with their cost predictions starting off with a grand total of $1 Billion for seven regulations which then goes to estimates between $19 Billion to $90 Billion (some estimate) for just one regulation to some $38 billion dollars for supposedly the same seven regulations that were initially reported to cost $1 Billion then coming up with a $100 million tag for some 219 regulations altogether. All over the map. It's what happens when you don't report facts or don't understand what you're reporting or when you report for people that can't really read or comprehend to begin with the latter probably being what this poor reporting is attributable to since no sane person actually consumes the Washington Times.

Which brings me to the point that perhaps you ought to brush up on your reading skills. See, there isn't a single mention of $100 Billion in that piece of ####### article you posted. Not one.

Actually there was but one had to comprehend what they were reading. Leaves you out of course as usual.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Andrew Grossman

The Heritage Foundation

Washington

Cass Sunstein's announcement of the Obama administration's "unprecedentedly ambitious" plans to save $4 billion in regulatory costs over five years is contemptible.

The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy estimates that Washington's regulatory maze costs Americans $1.7 trillion annually, so the proposed "reforms" amount to an annual reduction of less than one-tenth of 1%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530903105059630.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

President Obama told Speaker John A. Boehner in a letter Tuesday that his administration is considering seven regulations that would cost the U.S. economy more than $1 billion per year, although he added that these rules are “merely proposed.”

“Before finalizing any of them, we will take account of public comments and concerns and give careful consideration to cost-saving possibilities and alternatives,” Mr. Obama wrote to the Ohio Republican.

Mr. Boehner wrote to the president last Friday, asking for an accounting of proposed rules that would cost more than $1 billion annually. “The economy cannot withstand the barrage of major new federal regulations planned by the administration,” Mr. Boehner said.

When they return to work in Washington next week, House Republicans plan to focus on cutting government red tape as a way to promote job creation.

The president listed four proposed Environmental Protection Agencyrules and three in the Department of Transportation as having the high potential cost. An EPA regulation on air quality standards could cost between $19 billion and $90 billion per year. All told, the seven proposed rules cited by Mr. Obama would cost companies at least $38 billion per year.

The administration has been sparring with industry and congressional Republicans over cutting government regulations for most of Mr. Obama’s presidency. In his letter, Mr. Obama argued that his administration has already cut red tape that will save more than $10 billion over the next five years.

The president also said the cost of “final, economically significant rules” were higher in the final two years of the administration of Republican George W. Bush than in the first two years of Mr. Obama’s administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has questioned the administration’s tally.

Mr. Boehner said the administration’s regulatory agenda includes at least 219 proposed rules with a projected economic impact of at least $100 million, which he said runs counter to the president’s stated desire to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses.

Actually there was but one had to comprehend what they were reading. Leaves you out of course as usual.

Okay, I highlighted all cost references that I mentioned in my post. Why don't you highlight the $100 Billion reference you have found in the article? HAve you just added all the numbers? That would be the only way to come up with something in excess of $100 Billion. It would also demonstrate, however, a complete inability to read and comprehend. Which would be par for the course for readers of the Washington Times, of course. They're banking on that.