Published: Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Ever more numerous, burdensome and intrusive federal regulations hinder the economy, crimp liberty and — especially as promulgated by the Obama administration — flout constitutional separation of powers.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce data show that during the Obama administration's first three years, the Code of Federal Regulations grew by 7.4 percent, up from 4.4 percent during President George W. Bush's first term, The Hill newspaper reports.
The Hill also notes President Obama saying after the 2010 elections, “Where Congress won't act, I will.” His administration has done so via executive fiat — end runs around a legislative branch that wouldn't enact his agenda in such areas as immigration, gun control and cybersecurity. And in 2010, it implemented more “major rules” — with annual economic costs exceeding $100 million — than in any year since at least 1997.
“We sit back and ... watch, really, an executive branch that has, I think, arrogant powers of overseeing things,” Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Butler, told The Hill.
“Today, there is no greater impediment to American prosperity than the immense body of regulations,” says the Cato Institute, which publishes the quarterly magazine Regulation.
Indeed, there might be no greater impediment to constitutional governance and Americans' way of life overall than Washington's perpetually more onerous regulations, a thicket of red-tape woe long overdue for pruning.
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.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Detroit’s bankruptcy: An object lesson
- ‘China City’
- Sunday pops
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- The Box
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...