Regulatory hide & seek: End the game playing
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, Dec. 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Apparently concerned about public fallout from overreaching regulations, the Obama administration “systematically” delayed rules covering everything from ObamaCare to the environment before the 2012 presidential election, according to The Washington Post and an independent report.
Yes, prior administrations have done the same thing. But in the fine art of covering up a politically damaging agenda, from federal control of water bodies to pollution “standards” for industrial boilers, Team Obama surpassed its predecessors, The Post reports.
Moreover, the Administrative Conference of the United States, an advisory agency to the federal government, reports that internal reviews of proposed regs “took longer in 2011 and 2012 because of concerns about the agencies issuing costly or controversial rules prior to the November election.”
What's revealed is organized obfuscation by the Obama administration, obviously aware that its regulatory agenda was politically problematic.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Federal Rights and Agency Action, says he's going to “hold feet to the fire.” Does anyone seriously expect so much as a tongue lashing before the 2014 congressional elections?
No, the public has endured enough of the Obama administration's version of three-card monte. The only way to curb the game-playing is to eliminate President Obama's rubber-stamping Democrat Senate majority in next year's elections.
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.
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The case of Beaver County Sheriff George David: He should be jailed pending trial
- The Thursday wrap
- Another IPCC warning: More sci-fi
- The Obama/Biden visit: Oh, the irony
- Kathleen Kane attacks the free press
- The Box
- The Nevada standoff