• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Cass Sunstein defends new regulations

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
How is it, Congress is unaware of the new regulations? 1000s of new regulations and the bureaucracy that does the spending and writes the rules and regulations only answer to one man, instead of the voters

August 27, 2011
Cass Sunstein defends new regulations with 'lives saved and illnesses avoided' mythology
Phil Boehmke


During the first 100 days of our nation's downward spiral into oblivion (commonly known as the Obama administration) the Democrat controlled congress rammed a massive party loyalty rewards program (commonly known as the stimulus bill or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) down the throats of the hard-working American taxpayers. The $787 billion dollar fiasco didn't stimulate the economy in any measurable sense however a clever new accounting trick (jobs saved or created) was developed to prove the success of Mr. Obama's first major assault on America.

With a less compliant Republican congress to contend with, Mr. Obama and his comrades have sidestepped the democratic process in favor of governance through executive order and regulation. Representative government in Washington D.C. as designed by the Founders and Framers has ceased to exist. Everything and everyone from goat herders to guitars, find themselves under strict governmental regulation (and in timidation) and "We the People" no longer have any say in the government that we are forced to fund.

The Hill reports that Speaker of the House John Boehner has demanded that the White House provide detailed information on upcoming regulations with an implementation cost of $1 billion or more. Past requests for information on Mr. Obama's new regulations have been stonewalled by the administration.

"A refusal by the administration to disclose proposed regulations that would have an economic cost of more than $1 billion cost would send a terrible signal to already unnerved job creators in America," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Boehner. "We look forward to receiving that information before Congress returns."


How is it that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has to rely on the Obama administration to provide information concerning new regulations affecting the American people and paid for by the overburdened and underrepresented taxpayers? What about the plethora of new regulations which come in under the $1 billion threshold? Does the expression "No taxation without representation" mean anything to the current leadership?

In responding to Speaker Boehner's request, Obama regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein defended the long list of Obama regulations by claiming multi-billion dollar savings which have been projected based upon "lives saved and illnesses avoided."

The unelected, unconfirmed and unsupervised Sunstein can back up his claims by referencing the well-respected (by the left and their MSM minions) "non-partisan" Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The folks at the EPI released a report in advance of the EPA's regulatory tsunami which projects:


Even if all the final and proposed major rules are added together, their costs are still modest. When fully in effect in 2020, the combined costs of the major EPA rules finalized and proposed so far during the Obama Administration would amount to about 0.3 percent of the economy (this particular combined calculation overstates costs somewhat because it entails some unavoidable double-counting).

"The results of this uniquely comprehensive study clearly show how modest the costs of these regulations are relative to the size of the economy. When you factor in the extended period over which they will take effect, these rules will not stifle economic or job growth," said Shapiro.

The health benefits from the rules finalized and proposed by the administration would be great, concluded the study. For instance, the proposed air toxics rule, which regulates the amount of hazardous pollutants emitted, would have the following estimated health benefits in 2016:

6,800-17,000 lives saved
11,000 fever heart attacks
12,000 fewer hospital and emergency room visits
225,000 fewer cases of respiratory symptoms
850,000 more work days (because workers are not too sick to go to work)


Connie Hair warned us about EPI last October in her column for Human Events:


The EPI is housed on the third floor of the building occupied by the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, a hard-core leftist group whose flavor of socialist policy has brought you the current blend of elitist socialism and crony capitalism bankrupting the American economy. Which speaks volumes about EPI and the Democrat leadership's choice of witness.

Is there any chance that the folks at the EPI have considered how many lives will be lost and how many illnesses will be created by the stress caused by the economic disaster that will surely follow in the wake of these new regulations? Stress kills. How many senior citizens will be placed at risk due to the blackouts and brownouts that will accompany the closure of power plants under the new EPA regulations?

What would our Founding Fathers have to say about an executive branch that has proposed 219 new regulations (since losing control of the House of Representatives) which will affect Americans from all walks of life? How would James Madison feel about the executive branch usurping the power and the authority of the legislative branch? What would our Founding Fathers do? What will our elected representatives do? What will we do?

August 27, 2011

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/cass_sunstein_defends_new_regulations_with_lives_saved_and_illnesses_avoided_mythology.html
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypo, how much dd the BP oil spill cost up to this date?

Everyone hates regulations until they actually matter. What is more important or problematic is how some regulations are used to benefit political cronies like helping the meat packers get rid of competition in the industry.

It is once again competent government or regulations vs. those that are not.


Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
hypo, how much dd the BP oil spill cost up to this date?

Everyone hates regulations until they actually matter. What is more important or problematic is how some regulations are used to benefit political cronies like helping the meat packers get rid of competition in the industry.

It is once again competent government or regulations vs. those that are not.


Tex


The regulations were in place that would have prevented the BP oil spill. The employees at the agency were taking payoffs etc.

OT told us that, remember.

Regulatory Capture, once again
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
But the point of this thread Tex, is that congress isn't even aware of the laws and regulations being written.

the US is being run by a bunch of beauracies.

The laws should be written by congress and enforced by the agencies, not the other way around.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
In the words of the stupidest woman on the planet, WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL TO FIND OUT WHAT IS IN IT. :mad:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
But the point of this thread Tex, is that congress isn't even aware of the laws and regulations being written.

the US is being run by a bunch of beauracies.

The laws should be written by congress and enforced by the agencies, not the other way around.

You don't know how any of this works, do you?

Congress writes laws that are pretty broad and more general and then the agencies write the specific regulations like the allowed ppm or whatever specifics are required. This happens on many regulatory laws that have technical specs to them. Most people in Congress know too little about the technical stuff to be any help in the specifics, something you seem to share on this subject. The Judiciary Committee is full of lawyer senators who know how to put a loophole in for the people bribing them or influencing them. That is one of the reasons it is really the one of the most coveted committees to be on with the exception of the appropriations committees.

You are right about the bureaucrats that run these agencies. They do need to be competent and not sold out to the corporations they are supposed to regulate. Often they are given a revolving door political appointee that either is competent or not (remember "Brownie?) and many times they have ties to the corporations they are regulating or are their puppets. That is how you get regulatory capture. It is usually Congress that is sold out and then the party has a big hand in the political overseers of the regulatory agencies that allow regulatory capture and many times it is the interference of those in the party on an ideological basis or political basis. These members of Congress, if quizzed on the specifics, would fail miserably. The courts depend on the more technical work done by the regulatory agencies.

Regulatory capture is something that the executive branch allows or doesn't allow. Most of the regulatory capture is a direct result of corporations influencing the political system in a variety of ways through both the executive branch and the Congress, and yes, even the courts when the corporations need the trump card played. They try to avoid that trump card and really, really avoid juries and their verdicts because when the facts come out the jury gets pretty upset at the shennanigans played by these companies and their lawyers.



Tex
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
And when you have an executive branch appointing Leftwing radicals to the agencies, in charge of writing the final rules, during congressional recesses so the Congress doesn't get to approve or disapprove of them YOU HAVE A BIG PROBLEM. The regulations that Obama is willing to step back on so he looks good in the next election will be nothing compared to the ones his radicals will be replacing them with. The countless radicals in the Obama Administration will cost the US economy more that anyone will ever dream of you can bet on it.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Tam said:
And when you have an executive branch appointing Leftwing radicals to the agencies, in charge of writing the final rules, during congressional recesses so the Congress doesn't get to approve or disapprove of them YOU HAVE A BIG PROBLEM. The regulations that Obama is willing to step back on so he looks good in the next election will be nothing compared to the ones his radicals will be replacing them with. The countless radicals in the Obama Administration will cost the US economy more that anyone will ever dream of you can bet on it.

Please do give specifics. In the last Farm Bill, the Congress DIRECTED the writing of the GIPSA regulations and it was passed into law. There wasn't anything radical about them except the straw man the meat packers and their puppets began whining about. The meat packers hired the same group that did their analysis on MCOOL to come up with a ridiculous report they keep quoting as job killing.

You have a very big generalization and bandwagon a lot of corporations and Wall Streeters want to hitch a ride on so they are not regulated.

It is no big thinking effort to know that the Bush administration hollowed out regulatory agencies in their lassie faire attitude towards their responsibilities to actually run the government competently and this lead to some of the biggest regulatory failures in our history.

I don't know that Bush personally did this on purpose or just didn't know what the heck his cronies were doing. The buck stops with him either way on their failures as it will when Obama's appointees fail to competently run their respective agencies.

There are a lot of people who don't want to be held responsible for what they have done and would just love to have no regulations.

Hypo, your whole theory on regulatory capture is so wrong that it isn't even funny and I consider you one of the more intelligent people on this site when you want to be.

I guess I don't know a lot about Canada to be fair.

Tex
 

cowman52

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
716
Reaction score
2
Location
West Texas
The regulations are written by Idiots that have been on the federel payroll for years, the only thing they know is to write like hell to prove to some other dumba** they are on the ball.

if they thought any at all they would see no tractors, no cows , no electricity just me huddled under 10 blankets, with a rock heated in the fireplace, got to watch out for the smoke tho-- that dad gum carbon footprint will kill us all.

as grand dad would say " they can't find their butt with both hands and a lantern" :evil: :evil:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture






Tex said:
You don't know how any of this works, do you?

Congress writes laws that are pretty broad and more general and then the agencies write the specific regulations like the allowed ppm or whatever specifics are required. This happens on many regulatory laws that have technical specs to them. Most people in Congress know too little about the technical stuff to be any help in the specifics, something you seem to share on this subject. The Judiciary Committee is full of lawyer senators who know how to put a loophole in for the people bribing them or influencing them. That is one of the reasons it is really the one of the most coveted committees to be on with the exception of the appropriations committees.

You are right about the bureaucrats that run these agencies. They do need to be competent and not sold out to the corporations they are supposed to regulate. Often they are given a revolving door political appointee that either is competent or not (remember "Brownie?) and many times they have ties to the corporations they are regulating or are their puppets. That is how you get regulatory capture. It is usually Congress that is sold out and then the party has a big hand in the political overseers of the regulatory agencies that allow regulatory capture and many times it is the interference of those in the party on an ideological basis or political basis. These members of Congress, if quizzed on the specifics, would fail miserably. The courts depend on the more technical work done by the regulatory agencies.

Regulatory capture is something that the executive branch allows or doesn't allow. Most of the regulatory capture is a direct result of corporations influencing the political system in a variety of ways through both the executive branch and the Congress, and yes, even the courts when the corporations need the trump card played. They try to avoid that trump card and really, really avoid juries and their verdicts because when the facts come out the jury gets pretty upset at the shennanigans played by these companies and their lawyers.



Tex
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
It is no big thinking effort to know that the Bush administration hollowed out regulatory agencies in their lassie faire attitude towards their responsibilities to actually run the government competently and this lead to some of the biggest regulatory failures in our history.



Another liberal wanting to blame Bush for the lapse in regulations that cause the problems within his final years in the White House. Do we really need to post all the information of who it was that eased the regulations and who it was that warned of the brewing troubles the US economy was going to face if Fanny Freddy and the banks weren't reined in AGAIN. :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top