Regulation Without Representation

The left is for bigger government. They want more regulations. We all say these things and use these two arguments when talking conservative vs liberal politics. However, "big government" and "more regulation" are vague ideas. Congress and the President cite statistics from bipartisan committees for every issue imaginable. President Obama even uses statistics that aren't kept, such as jobs saved or created by the stimulus. One statistic you won't here them put positive spin on is the cost of complying with their regulations. There are several reasons for this, most obvious is that there is no way you can positively spin the massive cost of compliance and still get re-elected. Second, to make sure no one has to be held accountable for this, they don't keep records of cost of compliance. So in honor of the Cap and Trade bill that's about to be voted on Friday, here are a few numbers to put a "price" behind "more regulation. Note to ABC, considering there is a vote on the Cap and Trade issue in 2 days, don't you think it would be best to hold your lets-get-the-whole-story-so-important-robust debate-all sides of argument-from inside the white house-no opposition present-all day marathon coverage on Cap and Trade, not Health Care. Or maybe, just maybe, is the health care thing being used to distract the public from the biggest tax increase in history?? (through regulation of big business of course, but it's for "the common good.") Transparency? What happened to doing away with slipping things through in the middle of the night.

From the Competitive Enterprise Institute annual report

Last year Congress passed and the President signed into law a total of 285 bills. Yet federal regulatory agencies issued 3,830 "final" rules. The total regulatory compliance costs of all these regulations hit $1.172 trillion in 2008. That's almost as much as Uncle Sam raised in individual income taxcollections and three times the $345 billion in corporate income
taxes

"61 federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 4,004 regulations in play at various stages of implementation … 180 are 'economically significant' rules, packing at least $100 million in economic impact." (rules not in play yet, but coming)

"it largely amounts to agency self-policing; agencies that perform 'audits' of their own rules would rarely admit that a rule's benefits do not justify the costs involved." (when you do here numbers from the government about complying with their regulations, it's from the government agency employing the regulations)

So, transparency anyone? Why does the government not issue a report on this? We elect them, they force regulation after regulation on the public sector, and they don't compile a report on how their regulations affect the people who elected them. They report on stimulus statistics that aren't even kept, that are just made up, and the public media eat it up. These people need to be held accountable. If they want to pass a regulation, they need to be forced to tell the public what it is going to cost. And when a cost analysis comes out that doesn't fit their mold, I don't want that agency attacked and belittled..Chris Dodd. This is just the beginning, with health care and cap and trade in the works, it's not looking good. I don't believe you, President Obama, when you tell me passing the most regulative 2 programs in the history of the United States won't increase my taxes or cost me money, because the facts show a different story.

source:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html