There's a regulatory cliff too
Via Pat Hynes lobbying and PR shop, an excellent round up of articles on what they are calling the "regulatory cliff" that has almost completely been ignored by the media and even most conservatives.
A few examples:
Though the fiscal cliff dominates headlines, Team Obama's rapid expansion of regulations cannot be ignored. "The growing cost of regulations has been hidden from the headlines behind the fiscal cliff, but they should not be ignored." [Sam Batkins, "Lame duck regulatory deluge could top $100 billion," American Action Forum, 11/27/2012. http://bit.ly/RiL7Yq]
The regulatory burden sounds a lot like our deficit. "The Obama administration has pursued an active regulatory agenda. The overall regulatory burden is now $1.8 trillion annually, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and this year alone new rules have added $215.4 billion in compliance costs." [Rep. Sam Graves, "The regulatory cliff awaits," Reuters, 12/6/2012. http://reut.rs/Vy3VUQ]
The lack of transparency is staggering. "Current law generally dictates that a regulation should not be at the White House longer than 90 days. However, as demonstrated below, more than 80 percent of all currently reviewed 'regulatory actions' have been at the White House for more than 90 days. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) admits 84 percent of EPA rules have been delayed and 100 percent of energy regulations have, for some reason, been under review for more than 90 days." [Sam Batkins, "Lame duck regulatory deluge could top $100 billion," American Action Forum, 11/27/2012. http://bit.ly/RiL7Yq]
Obama's bureaucrats have refused to level with the public about the impact of their regulations. "There is a great deal of uncertainty with many of these cost estimates. Part of the problem is simple: transparency. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the White House must release a 'Unified Agenda' of all federal rulemakings twice a year. The RFA notes, 'During the months of October and April of each year, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register a regulatory flexibility agenda.' To date, the administration has not released even one agenda in 2012...Beyond a simple schedule of possible rulemakings, the White House has been coy about the costs and benefits of recent regulations." [Sam Batkins, "Lame duck regulatory deluge could top $100 billion," American Action Forum, 11/27/2012.http://bit.ly/RiL7Yq]
The corresponding burden to businesses - you know, job creators - is staggering. "For the regulations that do have proposed versions, the associated paperwork burden is 37.6 million hours. To put this in perspective, a productive work year is 2,000 hours. Thus, the pending proposals could force 18,839 full-time employees into the role of paperwork compliance." [Sam Batkins, "Lame duck regulatory deluge could top $100 billion," American Action Forum, 11/27/2012. http://bit.ly/RiL7Yq]
Now we're facing a $100 billion regulatory overload that few Americans know about. "The White House touts transparency, but for an unknown reason, refuses to follow explicit laws on regulatory transparency. At more than $100 billion, the potential regulatory bill for the lame duck session is already significant. There are doubtless benefits associated with these regulatory overhauls as well, but the public doesn't have a fair opportunity to see the costs or benefits of these proposed rules." [Sam Batkins, "Lame duck regulatory deluge could top $100 billion," American Action Forum, 11/27/2012.http://bit.ly/RiL7Yq]
Obama also put off implementing $100 billion in regulations until after the campaign.
Not all regulations are bad but $1.8 trillion is far too large a burden to justify. This kind of regulatory environment strangles job creation, not to mention slowing economic activity. And there have been few of the possible thousands of regulations associated with the implementation of Obamacare that have been published.
Can't wait for that, huh.