Tag Archives: government regulation

What Global Warming Is Really About

Posted on by

On Friday, Issues & Insights posted an article about global warming. The article includes a number of statements by people who claim to be alarmed at global warming that might cause you to question their motives.

The article reports those statements:

  • Christiana Figueres, one-time executive secretary of United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the climate activists’ agenda is not to protect the environment but to break capitalism. The task ahead, she said in 2015, is “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
  • The late Rajenda Pachauri was the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman until 2015. He openly conceded “the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems” was “more than a mission” to him. It was his “religion” and “dharma.”
  • Activist and influential author Naomi Klein once wondered if the fearmongering was “the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?” The world must “change, or be changed,” she says, because an “economic system” — our free and open markets — has caused environmental “wreckage.”
  • Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said almost five years ago that Miami will not exist “in a few years” due to the effects of global warming. She of course had a plan, not to deal with the changes, but to pass Democratic Party policies. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” former Ocasio-Cortez chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti said, according to the Washington Post Magazine. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked an aide to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee while the pair met at a Washington, D.C. coffee shop in May. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

The free market will always provide a cleaner environment than government regulation. It should also be noted that many of those complaining about the carbon footprint of our cars are flying around the world in private jets. If they truly believed climate change was an existential crisis, would they be doing that?

 

 

This Won’t Be A Surprise To Most Americans

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the Biden administrations’ reporting of the jobs reporting during the past year or so.

The article reports:

The federal government overestimated the number of jobs in the U.S. economy by 818,000 between April 2023 and March 2024, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released Wednesday, stoking fears of a slowdown in the U.S. economy.

Economists at Goldman Sachs (GS) and Wells Fargo anticipated the government had overestimated job growth by at least 600,000 in that span, while economists at JPMorgan Chase had predicted a lesser decline of 360,000, according to Bloomberg. The downward revision follows a trend of the BLS overestimating the number of nonfarm payroll jobs added, with the cumulative number of new jobs reported in 2023 roughly 1.3 million less than previously thought as of February 2024

The article concludes:

Wednesday’s downward revision has also heightened concern that the Federal Reserve has waited too long to begin cutting interest rates, Bloomberg reported. If the FOMC hesitates to cut rates for too long, it could result in recession instead of a soft landing — an economic slowdown in which inflation is brought down without causing recession.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided to hold its target federal funds rate between 5.25% and 5.50% in July, marking the eighth meeting in a row the FOMC has decided to keep rates at their current 23-year high.

“Wall Street is increasingly waking up to the fact that the economy post-covid has never been as good as the government bean counters claimed, and a recession may have already begun,” Antoni told the DCNF. “These revisions are a violent shove in the direction of reality.”

The economic rebound has been slowed by government policies that are not totally related to interest rates. Government regulation and tax policy play a big role in America\s economy. If a Democrat is elected President in November, you will see tax rates skyrocket and the economy stumble.

Unnoticed In The Mix

Posted on by

On Friday Issues & Insights posted an article about an executive order signed by President Biden that was pretty much overlooked, but will have enormous impact.

The article reports:

In the flurry of President Joe Biden’s executive orders was one that was almost entirely overlooked but could easily end up having the biggest impact.

The order also seems harmless enough, going by the seemingly innocent title “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” Except this order isn’t about modernizing regulations. It’s about unleashing the regulatory state with a ferocity never before seen in this country.

Biden’s order – which didn’t get released to the press until late in the evening of his first day – aims to effectively toss the cost-benefit analysis that for many decades has served as at least a modest brake on the ambitions of regulators. In the past, regulations where the cost of compliance far exceeded the benefits could be stymied by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Essentially this means that there will be no cost controls on the new regulations President Biden is unleashing on the country.

The article contrasts this to what the Trump administration accomplished in the area of regulation:

One of Trump’s biggest – unsung – achievements in the White House was his effort to rein in the regulatory state. A lifelong businessman, Trump understood – in a way lifelong politicians cannot – the avalanche of regulations that fall on a business and the enormous costs they impose. One of his very first actions was the two-for-one order.

CEI’s Crews says that Trump actually exceeded that goal, with agencies getting rid of 4.3 rules for every new one.

The Trump administration’s Council of Economic Advisers calculated that the deregulatory measures taken over the past four years saved households an average of $3,100 a year. And while there’s some debate over the extent of the benefits from Trump’s efforts, the undeniable fact is that he slowed the regulatory current.

Even so, the regulatory state today imposes $1.9 trillion in costs, according to CEI. That is an enormous hidden tax on families. In fact, if our regulatory state were a country, it would be bigger than Canada’s entire economy. The idea that we are getting more than $1.9 trillion in health and safety benefits from these rules is laughable.

Unfortunately, with this one executive order, Biden shows that he’s intent on giving regulators carte blanche to impose massive new rules on businesses and households, on virtually anything and everything they do, regardless of costs. There’s little else Biden has done so far that will have as wide-ranging an impact.

This is definitely a time to hold on to your wallet.

Good News For Impatient People Who Like Clean Dishes

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about dishwashers–the kind that are installed in with your kitchen cabinets and take forever to clean the dishes about as well as your average cat. I realize that does not apply to all dishwashers, but since the environmentalists got involved, it applies to a lot of them. Well, that is about to change.

The article reports:

Consumers outraged about slow dishwashers are staunchly backing an Energy Department move, over industry objections, to create a new category of products that feature a one-hour washing cycle.

Individual consumers have flooded the public comment docket in support of the Energy Department proposal, which grants a petition made by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank. The agency proposal would establish a separate product class for dishwashers that clean and dry dishes within one hour, an action that would exclude those appliances from current energy and water conservation standards until separate rules are crafted.

The Energy Department could finalize the proposal as soon as next year.

“A First World country deserves a dishwasher that can actually clean soiled dishes in an hour – as it used to have before this regulation was enacted to ‘save’ us energy and money. It doesn’t,” one individual consumer, Chad Anderson, wrote in a comment submitted this week.

The article concludes:

The Energy Department, though, in its proposal said data and customer complaints show many consumers would value “shorter cycle times to clean a normally-soiled load of dishes.” Watkins argued that no dishwasher models currently exist on the market that have a normal one-hour cycle for washing and drying.

Mauer said a number of factors, including consumer preferences for more efficient and quieter dishwashers, have impacted the cycle times.

And she said the lack of standards for the new product class also means the Energy Department’s move likely violates a provision in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which prohibits the agency from loosening the efficiency standards.

Appliance makers also say the product class isn’t necessary, and they say the Energy Department action creates new regulatory burdens that will cost manufacturers.

Creating a new product class would lead to stranded investments for companies, “as manufacturers would essentially be required to abandon” innovations in efficiency they’d made to comply with the previous standards, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers wrote in comments.

The group, which represents more than 150 companies, wrote it has raised concerns about dishwasher cycle times previously but stressed this wasn’t the venue to address them.

Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, however, argued appliance makers don’t want the Energy Department to change the current limits because it would open up the market to new companies that haven’t spent the money to comply with conservation limits.

“They now view the regulations in some way as a barrier to entry” into the market, Watkins said. He also suggested that creating a new product class could relieve some of the pressure manufacturers face from ever-tightening standards due to the law’s “one-way ratchet.”

Plus, it’s hard to argue with the overwhelming consumer support, Watkins said, pointing to a recent survey the group conducted of more than 1,000 customers showing a majority prefer dishwasher cycles of one hour or less.

“Where can I get a MDGA* hat? (*Make Dishwashers Great Again),” one consumer wrote in the comments.

What has happened to dishwashers in recent years is another example of the government deciding what is good for the consumer without giving the consumer a voice in the decision. The idea of a dishwasher that effectively cleans dishes in an hour is a winner. Government regulation and interference kept it from being a reality.

How Much Does It Cost?

Posted on by

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.