Later today, the House of Representatives will seize the opportunity to bring some common sense to the outdated regulatory system in America. It will pass the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) and send the Senate yet another bipartisan bill that we should pass and send to President Obama, who should sign it. A veto, which the president has threatened, would send another job-stifling chill through the American economy.
The REINS Act, introduced by Rep. Geoff Davis and Sen. Rand Paul, would require that Congress approve every new “major” rule proposed by the executive branch before it is enforced. A “major rule” is any rule that is determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Advertisement
Burdensome regulations are hurting job creation in America. As any job creator will testify, job creation happens when the economic environment offers certainty and incentives to start a business or expand an existing one. Unfortunately, regulations coming out of Washington are costly, time-consuming, and burdensome — and oftentimes there is no compelling justification for their existence. These rules force job creators to devote precious resources to hire new accountants and lawyers to comply with the new mandates, instead of focusing on hiring a new engineer or investing in equipment. In fact, a recent Gallup poll put “complying with government regulations” at the top of concerns faced by small-business owners.
This year alone, 772 regulatory documents have been deemed “significant” under the president’s definition, heaping an estimated $230 billion in new compliance costs on the struggling economy. A staggering 76,292 pages of regulations have been added to the Federal Register, and the expected paperwork burden for businesses stands at 119.4 million hours per year. Regulations based on sound science that keep the American people safe are an important function of the federal government, but it is quite clear that our runaway regulatory system must be reined in to help foster private-sector job creation. An estimate from the American Action Forum finds that passage of the REINS Act could yield regulatory cost savings of over $40 billion and save 55,000 jobs.
The most obvious example of regulatory overreach is the health-care-spending law, which I’m hopeful the Supreme Court will strike down as unconstitutional. The uncertainty caused by Obamacare’s maze of government mandates and tax hikes is hurting job creation, and it must be repealed in full and replaced with patient-centered solutions that lower health-care costs without hurting the economy.
Washington’s regulatory blizzard is also having a disproportionate effect on Florida’s dynamic economy. In particular, I am actively working to halt an Internal Revenue Service mandate on U.S. banks that would cause tens of billions of dollars to flee the economy, to have the EPA withdraw its job-killing numeric-nutrient regulation on Florida businesses, to provide relief for fast-growing companies from onerous regulations in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality rules, which would stifle job-creating investment in the Internet industry.
Every member of Congress hears from their constituents about the mountain of government rules like these that are increasing the costs of starting a business or expanding an existing one. Given this reality, it’s no wonder the House of Representatives is set to pass the REINS Act, and it’s why the REINS Act was one of the first bills I co-sponsored upon joining the Senate.
It’s time for Senate Democrats to stop standing in the way of another commonsense bill passed by the House of Representatives that will bring greater accountability and transparency to an archaic regulatory system that is actively impeding desperately needed private-sector job creation.
According to a recent poll, Floridians will not vote for Rubio in 2012 and if the GOP nominee were to select Rubio as their VP, he will have adverse effects on their campaign and decrease their chances of becoming president.
Besides, if Gingrich becomes president most likely he'll be in office for eight years, the Dems for at least four, which leaves 2024 as the earliest calendar year for the next GOP presidential candidate.
As posted in the other similar storyline - this won't pass and won't ever see the light of day. In his inimical anti-democratic, curmudgeon fun-loving Stalinesqe way, 'ol Sen. Reid, the stopper of all debate and deliberation (odd seeing as how he heads the "greatest deliberative body") will never let a bill like this see the light of day. Period.
Only way to fix this, is for a 62 majority GOP senate voted in next Nov. (I'd say 60 but those 'ol Maine gals, Collins and Snowe never do like any GOP ideas and will probably vote Dem anyway). But most especially a Republican President would enable him to appoint conservative regulatory heads to undo completely everything done in the past 3 or so years. Plus, maybe even take it back a little further.
Maybe, just maybe, a GOP led Congress can get off their rear ends and open up ANWR, end drilling bans, and stop the wasteful ethanol and other subsidies. Continue R&D - yes, but cut out billions in wasted subsidies.
Then attack other regulatory actions with a meat cleaver, chopping off here and there, everywhere and reducing funding and staffs by 25% or more - at least.. And hire 50 lawyers in DOJ to fight every single lawsuit NGOs and others bring up against it. Then look to impeach 1/4 of the Federal judiciary and replace it wtih jurists - not wannabe legislators.
Now, that would be a start, Jump start the economy and make Americans happier.
It makes sense and the need has been documented by many agencies representing businesses and government. However, we know that doesn't guarantee passage in this disfunctional government. Nothing is going to happen until after the 2012 election and maybe not then depending on the results. Ideology trumps national interests now and if that means that we all go down with the ship then that is how it will be.
I'd be inclined to consider being in favor of REINS if the following provisions were in place
1) Guarantee that there is a vote within 70 days
2) Mandatory presentation before debate and vote of costs (for whom) AND benefits (to whom)
3) Mandatory posting of not only how legislators voted, but donors to that legislator, and amount, that had a stake in the vote on a given rule
4) Mandatory posting of each legislators rationale for any given vote, including their opinion of cost/benefit
5) Mandatory posting of meetings with lobbyists with a position related to a vote on a rule.
That's the only way that the public will be able to assess how their representatives voted on rules, and why, and to understand what really influenced their vote.
Or, you can cheer for passage as is - it will create billions more in wealth for lobbyists, and jobs in that field
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Congress wouldn't delegate so much power to regulators in the first place if REINS is passed; that alone would do a lot of good.
Our Congress abandoned us when it gave spending authority to the regulators.
Until all the scandals came out, I was unaware that the regulators had the authority to issue massive loans, without oversight.
Were you aware that the Dept. of Agriculture issued home loans?
Many of the major departments of the federal government duplicate activities of other departments and control vast amounts of money that some backroom regulator can use for whatever reason. Do you wonder why there is such vast corruption?
I would rather see the congress not only rein in the regulators, but reinstate their own Constitutional purpose which is to "oversee" and "control" the pursestrings of the nation, i.e., our taxdollars.
KYLE MUNZENRIEDER over at the Miami New Times has a case against you and Mariquito. Actually, he's probably the only journalist in South Florida who dislikes Republicans equally.
Fat chance: 'Could Jeb Bush Still Enter the GOP Presidential Primary?' External Link
"His children also have some interesting arrest records." Condolences to the children.
"1. He still has the last name Bush." Condolences to George.
One of my favorites: ;-) 'Ed Schultz Rips Marco Rubio for Insulting America' External Link
This can't be good: 'Marco Rubio has Higher Disapproval Ratings than Bill Nelson' External Link
"Well, first of all he's said time and again he wouldn't accept the VP nomination, but PPP finds that only 30 percent of Floridians would be more likely to vote for the Republican ticket if he were its number 2. 36 percent say they'd be less likely to vote for the Republican ticket if it included Rubio."
October's numbers: 30/36
November's numbers: 24/41 External Link
Fighting the EPA one regulation at a time will never cut it... the problems are structural, and can only be addressed at their most basic level which involves the foundation of the EPA itself. The EPA has always been a b#st@rd spawn of both Congress and the Executive branch (Nixon executive order 1970). Although ostensibly part of the Executive branch, it is an “independent agency”, and as such, it is by design subject to minimal review by either Congress or the President, and therefore essentially uncontrollable. Its charter is to create environmental regulations which are effectively the same as laws; thus every time the EPA regulates, it is the same as if Congress is not only bypassed, but is allowed to be utterly lazy and irresponsible by ignoring its Constitutional duties as a legislative body. Even assuming that Congress decided to review each and every regulation, the task would be realistically impossible, as the rate of generation of regulations by a body such as the EPA far outstrips the rate of the review process itself, including any attempts to actually reign in specific aspects.
This monster should never have been allowed to see the light of day. The reach of EPA regulations are far from trivial, and in fact controls every member and organization of our society. But none of that control can be effectively shaped or counteracted by citizens. There is only the most byzantine of bureaucratic processes to review after the fact, and there is an unrepentantly progressive court system by which to fight only the most egregious regulations, with the system stacked tremendously against anyone but the largest corporations. The deck is further stacked when so-called private environmental groups are indirectly funneled government money via grants or endowments from groups feeding on tax-free corporate welfare and associated lobbyists. This whole setup effectively amounts to a tyranny imposed on small-to-medium sized businesses, organizations, and individual citizens.
The only solution is to abolish the EPA immediately, with the intent of placing such lawmaking authority back where the Constitution intended, i.e., Congress. In addition, all regulations from the EPA for the past ten years should be suspended and rolled back until subject to review and approval by Congress. After that, every so-called environmental law passed by Congress should have an 11-year sunshine limitation automatically placed upon it, in order to come up for review to gage its actual effects as opposed to its pristine fantasyland intentions. Without this approach, the EPA will continue every year to encroach upon liberty, to strangle private businesses, destroy jobs, and to place a blanket of fear upon each and every one of us, in that we are all now in violation of some environmental regulation somewhere, and only government inefficiency prevents it from coming down on our heads and making us political prisoners.
"The REINS Act, introduced by Rep. Geoff Davis and Sen. Rand Paul, would require that Congress approve every new “major” rule proposed by the executive branch before it is enforced..."
It's the same Rand Paul who "alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio's effort to get a unanimous vote."
A unanimous vote for what?
Last week "Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend."
"And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?"
We're not sure, but we know this...
"McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia into NATO, and thus acquire a priceless U.S. war guarantee to fight on Georgia's side in any clash with Russia."
And we know this...
'Marco Rubio and other GOP senators (McCain) visit Libya'
Is there a connection? Maybe. Pat Buchanan insists that "it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann's ilk had to have had a role in drafting it."
"The reason Paul has been able to slowly build his base of support in the state is that, on most issues, his views no longer lie outside the mainstream of the party orthodoxy. It’s become one of the great clichés of 2012 that the GOP as a whole has moved significantly in Ron Paul’s direction since his last campaign in 2008, and on domestic issues, it’s largely true. Paul’s endless fulminations about profligate monetary policy and the evil Fed, as well as his draconian prescriptions for a radically smaller federal government, now all sound completely within the conservative mainstream."
