Obama's regulatory agenda: Here it comes
With his re-election behind him, perhaps now President Obama will finally release his regulatory agenda, which was due in April and again in October under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The law requires the release of all new rules that pose a “significant economic impact.” The administration's last regulatory agenda, released in the fall of 2011, included 2,676 rules.
What the administration has stashed away portends to be “a regulatory tsunami,” according to a Heritage Foundation analysis.
Topping the list are more restrictive requirements for controlling ozone emissions — as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency — at a projected cost of $90 billion or more annually. Add to that the designation of coal ash as a “hazardous substance,” which would cost that industry up to $110 billion and thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Missouri, writes Diane Katz for Heritage.
Then there are various delayed diktats from other federal agencies, such as proposed energy-conservation standards for walk-in coolers and a new rule requiring rear-view cameras and video displays for all new cars and trucks (estimated cost, $2.7 billion).
How many of these proposals will be implemented at an enormous cost to businesses and consumers? If Obama's past regulatory agenda is a prologue, enough for every American to feel pressed by government's increasingly fat thumb.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The McConway & Torley foundry fight: Eco-wackos & hipsters vs. jobs
- Sunday pops
- Only in Ford City: More of the same
- The Box
- Investing in Connellsville: Support new businesses
- Saturday essay: Classified dreamers
- Wolf’s budget: Inconvenient truth
- Biblical or Vegas values?
- The NFL today: Tax-exempt no more
- Awaiting the paving of Pangburn Hollow Road
- An M4 fix: Get on with giving our Army a better gun