How Much Does It Cost?

The one thing that the Obama Administration should be famous for is the amount of regulations imposed on the American people through the Executive Branch of government–not through Congress, the body that is supposed to make laws–but through the Executive Branch. There is a cost on these regulations. The Washington Examiner posted a story today detailing that cost.

The article includes the following chart:

costofregulatoinsThe article reports:

The new high in regulatory costs, said Batkins (AAF’s Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the watchdog group), came after new fuel standards for trucks were implemented.

His study goes back to 2005, when George W. Bush was president, and said that Obama is responsible for about three-quarters of the added regulatory costs.

“The Obama Administration surpassed 500 major regulations last summer, imposing $625 billion in cumulative costs. Earlier this year, regulators published the administration’s 600th major rule, increasing burdens to $743 billion. Now, thanks to data from the last term of the Bush Administration and another billion-dollar rule from EPA, the regulatory tally has surpassed $1 trillion. These figures are direct estimates from federal regulators, but it will take more than an effort from these regulators to amend hundreds of major regulations. Congress, the next president, and even the courts must participate in the next generation of regulatory modernization,” he reported.

The reason that Congress is charged with making laws is that they are accountable to the voters. The Executive Branch (other than the President) is not elected and cannot be held accountable to the voters. However, as illustrated by November’s election, the voters do have a certain amount of power in terms of who controls the Executive Branch. Hopefully the Inauguration of Donald Trump will signal the end of over-regulation in America at least temporarily.

This May Get Very Ugly Very Quickly

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that still have not been released. Did anyone really believe that in the almost 15 years since the attack some of the information in those 28 pages wouldn’t leak out? The question is, “Why are they leaking out now?” In my years of blogging, I have become rather cynical. There will be consequences to the leaking of this information. One consequence will be to make George W. Bush look bad (in an election year), interesting. Another consequence will be to damage our relationship (such as it is) with Saudi Arabia (oddly enough this happens at a time the Obama Administration is cozying up to Iran, the arch enemy of Saudi Arabia). The sword that the Saudis have always held over America’s head is the stability of the U.S. dollar. The Saudis have been the OPEC member that has insisted that oil be traded in American dollars. That is one of the few reasons America’s debt has not collapsed the American economy. Since Congress (and most of our recent Presidents) are responsible for that debt, they have an interest in not collapsing the economy–they would be blamed. Therefore, Washington looks the other way when the Saudis are involved in terrorism–even when the terrorism is aimed at America.

The article at The New York Post reports:

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

…9/11 Commission member John Lehman was interested in the hijackers’ connections to Bandar, his wife and the Islamic affairs office at the embassy. But every time he tried to get information on that front, he was stonewalled by the White House.

“They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,” Lehman was quoted as saying in the book, “The Commission.”

Did the US scuttle the investigation into foreign sponsorship of 9/11 to protect Bandar and other Saudi elite?

“Things that should have been done at the time were not done,” said Rep. Walter Jones, the North Carolina Republican who’s introduced a bill demanding President Obama release the 28 pages. “I’m trying to give you an answer without being too explicit.”

A Saudi reformer with direct knowledge of embassy involvement is more forthcoming.

“We made an ally of a regime that helped sponsor the attacks,” said Ali al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. “I mean, let’s face it.”

Because of the recent leaks, the release of the 28 pages may be somewhat anti-climatic by the time it happens. I do, however, suspect that there are many less than obvious reasons why President Obama will release these pages (as he has promised to in the next sixty days).

An Unlikely Hero

On Friday the Daily Signal posted an article about the Ebola vaccine currently being tested. It is somewhat ironic that after the Democrats attempted to politicize the Ebola virus’s arrival in America, it turns out that the person responsible for the research into the vaccine is Dick Cheney.

The article reports:

From the time scientists first discovered the deadly virus in 1976 to 2012, two dozen outbreaks of Ebola claimed the lives of roughly 1,500 people–far less than the nearly 5,000 killed in the current outbreak in West Africa.

Bloomberg News reports that little money had been available to scientists to work on finding a cure to the disease. But after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Cheney, anticipating the potential for bioterrorist attacks, became the Bush White House’s point man advocating more spending to protect the nation from deadly pathogens.

One of the potential vaccines is currently being tested on humans. The additional money for the development of a vaccine was the result of the fear of a biological warfare attack after the 9/11 attack.

The Bush Administration has been criticized for many things, and some of the criticism is valid; but we need to remember that after the 9/11 attack, the Bush Administration set a high priority on the safety of Americans. They tried to be forward thinking in the steps they took. It would be very nice if the current administration was focused on the safety of Americans rather than election politics.

Unfortunately This Is Not A Surprise To Anyone Who Has Been Paying Attention

The Associated Press is reporting today that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has apologized for targeting conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle to see if they were violating the rules of their non-profit status.

The article reports:

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

I don’t like to accuse the Associated Press of bias, but the article makes a point of noting:

The agency — led at the time by a Bush administration appointee — blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.

The article reports that the excessive scrutiny on groups with the words ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their name began with ‘low-level’ employees in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. Really? Then what do you suppose motivated them?

The article further reports:

Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale,” the IRS said in a statement. “We fixed the situation last year and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our system.”

“I don’t think there’s any question we were unfairly targeted,” said Tom Zawistowski, who until recently was president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, an alliance of tea party groups in the state.

Zawistowski’s group was among many conservative organizations that battled the IRS over what they saw as discriminatory treatment. The group first applied for nonprofit status in June 2009, and it was finally granted on Dec. 7, 2012, he said — one month after Election Day.

This entire story is further proof that Chicago-style politics has truly come to Washington.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Elections Matter–Ask The Executives At Solyndra

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported today that the executives at Solyndra were putting heavy pressure on the Bush White House in as late as January 2009 to approve a government loan for the company.

The article reports:

On Jan. 12, 2009, Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet sent an Energy Department official an email marked “urgent” expressing outrage that Bush officials had decided a few days earlier that while the loan application had “merit” it needed further study before officials could move forward with a taxpayer-financed loan.

“I was appalled to learn on Friday that our application is being delayed yet again,” Gronet wrote to Energy official Steve Isakowitz, writing there had been “countless communications” back and forth suggesting the application would be reviewed Jan. 15.

The delay was a decision by the Bush administration to wait for an independent market analysis on January 9, 2009, before giving aid to the company.

The article further reports:

The next day, Jan. 13, 2009, [Bush DoE official Lachlan] Seward sent his email to Energy Department colleagues saying it was time to stop engaging with Solyndra officials.

There were no outside influences in this decision, and when the Bush administration looked at the loan request, it simply did not look like a good investment of taxpayer money.

Enhanced by Zemanta