Federal regulations costing US $1.9T annually

anatta

100% recycled karma
Federal regulations are now costing U.S. taxpayers and businesses $1.9 trillion a year, or $15,000 per household, according to a report released Wednesday which also found thousands of new regulations are in the pipeline.

The annual Ten Thousand Commandments report was released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian public-policy group.

The report exposes the “hidden” taxpayer costs associated with federal regulations and intervention, according to author Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., vice president of policy at CEI.

“The federal government has become very savvy in hiding costs by expanding their reach beyond taxes into regulations,” Crews said in the report.

The estimated $1.9 trillion cost of complying, according to the report, exceeds the $1.82 trillion the IRS was expected to collect in 2015 personal and corporate income taxes.

The report showed that Congress and the White House, respectively, last year passed and enacted 114 laws, while federal agencies issued 3,410 rules. That ratio of 30 rules per law marks a slight increase over recent years, based on the group's so-called “Unconstitutional Index.”

That finding shows the power of unelected agency officials, the 87-page report concludes.

The report also shows that agencies under the two-term George W. Bush administra*tion issued 62 major regulations annually, compared with 81 a year so far under the Obama administration, which ends its second term in January.

Right now, the administration’s roughly 60 departments, agencies and commissions have 3,297 regulations in various stages of the federal pipeline.

The departments of Commerce, Interior, Transportation, Treasury and Health and Human Services are the top-five rulemaking agencies and account for 41 percent of all federal regulations, the report also found.

Crews argued that regulatory costs get little attention in policy debates because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often indirect, which make them difficult to quantify.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tions-costing-us-taxpayers-1-9t-annually.html
 
Congress passes wide ranging law, which the fed'l agencies regulate (Congress proposes, the executive disposes)..
nfortunately since Congress is very much dysfunctional -no follow up studies are done by Congress to see the effects of their laws.

Fed'l agencies are self-perpetuating; everything else being equal they will expand their powers -in this case by expanding their reach..

So we wind up being "governed ( in a very true and large sense) by regulatory agencies.
By and large the regs are never analysis for effectivity, and costs.
 
Dems want more and pubs want more regs.
Down with the both of them. :vik:
Repubs are supposed to be for more limited government - but you are correct in terms of agencies under any party.
This is the kind of stuff that is never talked about in campaigns, but prolly has more direct effects on Americans then Congres or POTUS
 
I like regulations, they keep us safe. I would hate to think what it would be like if the government didn't protect us from those who would cut corners to save a buck.
 
I like regulations, they keep us safe. I would hate to think what it would be like if the government didn't protect us from those who would cut corners to save a buck.
regs are needed. Over-regs are not, and destructive..the point being here is that many are just mindlessly generated by agencies.
There should be some Congressional views ( checks and balances) -since the executive really isn't interested..

I have a problem with unelected officials making regs that serve their dept, but not necessarily the common good.
 
Rana is thoroughly brainwashed and for all practical purposes brain dead.....

She certainly doesn't care about the human cost of political regulations like killing coal. Did HRC really think west Virginians don't know just who us responsible for killing their jobs and why ?
 
I like regulations, they keep us safe. I would hate to think what it would be like if the government didn't protect us from those who would cut corners to save a buck.

All regulations? What about helmets for kids on bikes? Seat belts?
 
Repubs are supposed to be for more limited government - but you are correct in terms of agencies under any party.
This is the kind of stuff that is never talked about in campaigns, but prolly has more direct effects on Americans then Congres or POTUS

Yeah, pubs claim to want less regs, but always do the opposite.
 
And I'm sure we'd just be a fantastic place with no economic regulations in place. Just pump as much smog into the atmosphere as you want, poison our lakes. I bet our GDP would skyrocket with us all dying of cancer and emphysema.

A partial analysis like this, which does not take into account any benefits, is totally pointless.
 
regs are needed. Over-regs are not, and destructive..the point being here is that many are just mindlessly generated by agencies.
There should be some Congressional views ( checks and balances) -since the executive really isn't interested..

I have a problem with unelected officials making regs that serve their dept, but not necessarily the common good.

The agencies are empowered by law to make regulations. It's impossible for congress to micromanage the executive branch by passing a new law each time a new rule is needed. Nothing would ever get done.

The officials get their power from the president, who is an elected official. You change them by changing the president. If they were elected, they would have independent authority, which would be contrary to the unitary nature of the executive and make it impossible for the leader to set national goals.
 
I like regulations, they keep us safe. I would hate to think what it would be like if the government didn't protect us from those who would cut corners to save a buck.

You cant have it both ways though. You either get your high wages, env protections, and osha protections or free trade that hillary brings with TPP bringing you to the level of china with slave wages, no protections. It really is one of the two.
 
The agencies are empowered by law to make regulations. It's impossible for congress to micromanage the executive branch by passing a new law each time a new rule is needed. Nothing would ever get done.

The officials get their power from the president, who is an elected official. You change them by changing the president. If they were elected, they would have independent authority, which would be contrary to the unitary nature of the executive and make it impossible for the leader to set national goals.

all that is basic and true. Nobody is saying congress should usurp executive reg powers - but Congress should REVIEW what agencies
are doing in carrying out Congressional law.
Where the executive changes Congressional will t hen Congress needs to re-assert it's authority(will).

The problem of course is that Congress can barely agree to pass anything, and getting Congressional review is difficult.
One solution would be to have something like Tom Coburn's Waste Book..but it would need to be looked at seriously, and not just as a curiosity piece.
Our government is so unable to move nimbly where called for -some of that is institutional -but much of it is simply driven by hyper-parisanship
 
And I'm sure we'd just be a fantastic place with no economic regulations in place. Just pump as much smog into the atmosphere as you want, poison our lakes. I bet our GDP would skyrocket with us all dying of cancer and emphysema.

A partial analysis like this, which does not take into account any benefits, is totally pointless.
nice red herring..
the problem is cost/benefit ratios are not always used, or even agreed upon.

The EPA's WOTUS for example is a pure power grab and localities dealing with remote bureaucrats is so time consuming and expensive
it's easier to cede local powers..after awhile the balance of powers under federalism cease to exist.

The same scenarios happen in terms of separation of powers within the federal gov't.
 
nice red herring..
the problem is cost/benefit ratios are not always used, or even agreed upon.

The EPA's WOTUS for example is a pure power grab and localities dealing with remote bureaucrats is so time consuming and expensive
it's easier to cede local powers..after awhile the balance of powers under federalism cease to exist.

The same scenarios happen in terms of separation of powers within the federal gov't.

That always seems to be the left wing argument doesn't it? It is either a burdensome government or no government at all. It is a logical fallacy because pointing out that the government burdens innovation isn't the same as saying there should be no government.

But I guess for some government regulations has taken the place of the teddy bear they used when they were children. The government protects them from meanie people.
 
This is a load of crap. You write laws for criminals in our society and you write regulations for criminals in business. Take away the regulations and it will cost hell of a lot more but while business is going on easy street , we will be paying with our lives and a monetary amount that would increase multiple times over whatever regulations really cost to implement. without regulations they would eat our children for their bottom line. By the way it doesn't cost $15,000.00 a household annually, that level only exists in the minds of the people who grovel at the feet of Big business. Just noticed FOX crap news, you people need sources from organization who aren't the leading liars of the broadcast industry.
 
This is a load of crap. You write laws for criminals in our society and you write regulations for criminals in business. Take away the regulations and it will cost hell of a lot more but while business is going on easy street , we will be paying with our lives and a monetary amount that would increase multiple times over whatever regulations really cost to implement. without regulations they would eat our children for their bottom line. By the way it doesn't cost $15,000.00 a household annually, that level only exists in the minds of the people who grovel at the feet of Big business. Just noticed FOX crap news, you people need sources from organization who aren't the leading liars of the broadcast industry.
the study is by a libertarian organization. I try not to use FOX -but if only FOX is covering it -FOX it is.
 
Back
Top