When Congress returns from recess next week, the political conversation is going to be all about jobs. As President Obama prepares to outline his “very specific” jobs proposal in a speech, House Republicans are readying a plan of their own. A key element to the GOP jobs agenda will be identifying and eliminating federal regulations that are needlessly burdening business owners and in many cases preventing them from hiring new employees. To that end, House committee chairmen have put together a list of “the 10 most harmful job-destroying regulations,” and plan to take action over the coming weeks and months to repeal or forestall these restrictive measures.
The following ten federal regulations — some of them pending, some of them already in effect — are, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), “reflective of the types of costly bureaucratic handcuffs that Washington has forced upon business people who want to create jobs.”
Advertisement
NLRB’s Boeing Complaint
In April, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel issued a complaint against the Boeing company challenging the airline manufacturer’s decision to open a new plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The general counsel claims the move was an unlawful “retaliation” against the unionized workforce at Boeing’s existing plant in Washington State. Despite the fact that no union workers have lost their jobs as a result of the decision, the NLRB is seeking a “restoration order” against Boeing that would force a return to the status quo ante, giving unions the ability to bargain for a new plant in Washington. Meanwhile, Boeing has already invested some $2 billion in the South Carolina plant and created more than 2,000 jobs, all of which has been put at risk by the NLRB’s actions. Because Boeing will now have to spend millions defending itself in court, the ruling is likely to deter future investment and job creation across the country. Freshman Rep. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) has sponsored the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, which would stop the complaint from proceeding. The House plans to vote on the bill shortly after they return in September.
MACT and CSAPR Utility Standards
The Obama administration has proposed new maximum-achievable-control-technology (MACT) standards and a cross-state air-pollution rule (CSAPR) for utility plants that will have a direct impact on utilities prices across the country. The new rules will affect more that 1,000 fossil-fuel-fired power plants, a number of which will likely be forced to shut down. As a result, Americans in many parts of the country could find themselves paying anywhere from 12 to 24 percent more for electricity. The House will vote next month on the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (R., Okla.), which would mandate a cumulative economic analysis for regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and delay implementation of the new utility standards until the full impact of the administration’s regulatory agenda can be sufficiently analyzed.
Boiler MACT Rules
The EPA’s new “boiler MACT” rules would impose stricter emissions standards for some 200,000 commercial, institutional, and industrial boilers nationwide, and stand to dramatically impact the thousands of American businesses — from hospitals to factories to universities — that use them. EPA officials estimated the cost of the new rules at about $10 billion, though others predict the true cost will be almost double that figure. The U.S. Small Business Administration warned that the rules would cause “significant new regulatory costs” for businesses, institutions, and municipalities across the country, with the American forest and paper industry alone expected to see an additional burden of at least $5–7 billion in new capital and compliance costs. A U.S. Commerce Department analysis predicted job losses of up to 60,000 as a result of the stricter requirements — much greater than the EPA had initially claimed — while some estimates put the job loss figure at closer to 200,000. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R., Va.), would impose a stay on four related EPA regulations issued earlier this year and give the agency more time to issue new, less onerous rules. The House will vote on the bill in early October.
Progressives recognize that their days are numbered as more and more Americans are realizing the damage their policy choices are creating.
So they must do as much to ruin the economy of this country as possible in the near term so that whoever wins elections in 2012 will have to undo so much, it will be impossible and the undoing will cause too much pain. The left and the msm can then demonize the right to their heart's content about how they don't care about the environment or ordinary working Americans and look at all the mess they are making.
The question then is will the voters have long enough memories to remember how bad left wing policies are or will the cycle just keep repeating itself?
What's with all the laws for "moratoriums?" That is NO solution against this crowd! How about abolishing these regs? Or, better yet, since we know the source of this extra-legal mischief, why not simply zero-out the budgets for the EPA and NLRB?
7 out of 10 of these regs come out of EPA. Proof enough that Obama is wedded to the anti-business environmentalists. And further proof that Congress needs to reign in the rulemaking capabilities of all federal agencies.
The height of technocratic stupidity is captured in the threat to regulate farm dust. Only ideological fools could come up with such regulations on farmers. Plowing fields, baling hay and straw, combining corn,drying crops for proper and safe storage has been the same process for more than 5,000 years. Common sense and sanity tells you that dust is inherent in farming.
The Obama administration has put idiots and fools in charge while the national media remains silent.
There is no worse an example of technocratic stupidity and government run-amok than the threat to regulate farm dust. The EPA issued the press release more than one year ago and only Congressional pressure has slowed down their ideological-based crusade.
Plowing fields, baling hay, combining corn; drying crops for safe and proper storage has been the same process for more than 5,000 years. Common sense and sanity tell you that dust is inherent in farming.
The Obama administration has put ideological fools and idiots in charge of policy. They are an embarassment to citizens who live in the real world.
I have said it before and I will say it again. This isn't about a "progressive" plan to regulate the economy/society to their liking.
It is however about Mr. Obama's desire (and the marxists he surrounds himself with) to bring life to his father's dream of punishing those he saw as colonial devils.
I know that sounds crazy but my goodness the actions of this government border on insanity.
There's uncontrolled spending, a delirious desire to raise taxes, ignoring the debt, and the constant drum beat of racism.
If he's not bent on destroying the USA as we WANT it (and knew it) then he must be hallucinating. How far does liberal guilt go? Must we step into the abyss before we recognize it's bottomless?
Most of these ten regulations (7?) are about clean air.
Obviously, any regulation has to be Federal. Air doesn't stop at state borders.
So the question is how much clean air are we getting for how much job loss.
I put that question to you. Do you take the position that no amount of pollution is justified? Any amount?
If your answer is, "Neither -- it's somewhere in between," then who do you propose to decide how much is too much pollution? How do you suggest that decision be made?
I kinda like the idea of these regulations being fought out. Hearings, legislation, lobbying. Let me know a better way.
"Obviously, any regulation has to be Federal. Air doesn't stop at state borders."
By that logic, mere Federal regulations won't do the job either. Let's hear it for our new International Environmental Technocracy!
"I kinda like the idea of these regulations being fought out. Hearings, legislation, lobbying. Let me know a better way."
Sounds good to me. In fact that's what happened when Cap and Trade and Card Check bombed in the past year. The problem is that the EPA and NLRB are trying an end-run around the legislative process via administrative fiat.
Exactly right, blar. We have a legislative branch. It's time Congress wrested control if its Constitutional powers of writing all the laws away from Obama's executive branch. They need a good thumpin' over there in the White House. We thought we did that with the 2010 election, apparently they need another.
Why do we need to continually add more regulations? Is the air not clean enough? What's our average lifespan? Is air quality shortening that? It continues to grow year over year with no end in sight.
In Engineering circles we call this 'pushing the dog food around the bowl'. After using minimal effort to eat 95% of his food, the dog spends about 30 times that first effort to get up that last 5% of kibble. Not worth it.
Also, the International aspect... do we have jurisdiction over China, do you want them to have jurisdiction over us?
Pollution is a tough issue because there really are no good individual responsibility/Market solutions to it. I.E, the company that dumps their industrial waste into the stream shuffles the cost onto society and has a competitive advantage over the company that cleans up their waste.
So no, as imperfect as it is I don’t think there is a better solution than “these regulations being fought out. Hearings, legislation, lobbying.”
But I do think there needs to be an attitude change on the part of the professional environmental industry. While companies have become for environmentally responsible both in response to the regulations and customer attitudes, the environmental industry has become more extreme so that they are now simply anti-development. We see this in Alaska with regard to the oil industry. No matter how many environmental studies, no matter how carefully they dots the I’s and cross the T’s, you can count on some environmental group suing to stop any and all development because “they failed to follow XYZ regulation.”
This costs the companies dollars, encourages them, where possible, to seek opportunities outside the US, resulting in job losses and consequently reduced governmental revenue. Adding insult to injury, the environmental groups are basically paid for their anti-development efforts through the reimbursement of their “Public Interest” legal costs. And they are often aided by bureaucrats with no skin in the game.
The danger to the environment of environmental extremism is that economic development will be either outsourced to other countries with a lower concern for the environment or there will be a backlash against the environmental movement when the choice becomes between the environment and a job.
Dearest Mike and others. You have to understand, that when this regime talks about "pollution", they are talking about carbon dioxide.
We shouldn't be impoverishing ourselves while trying to eliminate this "pollutant", because of the religion of Climate Change.
MikeB, I'll throw the question back to you: do you believe CO2 is "air pollution"? If so, do you believe that "zero CO2" should be the EPA's goal?
But of course, the real point is that the EPA is supposed to regulate laws passed by congress. It's not supposed to decide for itself what needs regulating.
You need to add part two: FDA- The American people would be appalled at the hidden taxes in pharmacuetical development. It takes 2-3 million dollars in fees just to get a new drug approved for clinical trials. This is above and beyond the cost of research and developmnet to begin with
My answer to key in this morning was "ticked off." So perfect!
The next president needs to shutter the EPA, Energy, and Education for starters. The EPA once served a purpose, now it is a destroyer of the country. The Dept. of Energy keeps us from getting our own energy...the exact opposite of its original purpose. And, how's the Dept. of Education doing? Our kids are dumber than a box of rocks. We don't need to worry as much about foreigners who want to destroy the country when we've got Americans who can do it faster. Please, God, is there any common sense in Washington, D.C.? Apparently not on the Democratic side.
I used to think that all this EPA stuff was the result of good intentions gone bad. I now know that the intentions were never good. The purpose of these interventions in the economy is to re-order it. It can only be stopped by defunding EPA and letting industry self regulate. If we don't stop this madness, we'll have to send our farmers to law school to teach them to manage the regs. We will starve to death before we choke on the dust they create.
I meant to add this quote to the end of my post of 10:42 a.m. Somehow it seems appropriate: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
~ Milton Friedman
The question has been asked as to whether a better system for the development of regulations exists.
Well ignoring of course the house-of-cards "General Welfare" clause the EPA and other federal agencies rest upon I am unaware of the following:
1) sunshine statutes ensuring adequate education of the people not just the industries involved; we do pay for the feds to write the regs don't we?
2) review and approval by my ELECTED representative; regs do have the force of law, there shouldn't be an end around for the executive branch regardless of party.
3) mandatory cost/benefit analysis that determines the whether the regulation is allowed to be put into effect; not just some piece of dung opinion to make a constituency happy.
Aside from the enormous holes in the process I think we have a winner.
Follow
