Cutting red tape? Only adding more
Further confirming the Obama administration's through-the-looking-glass nature, a new report says the net effect of an executive order issued three years ago, touted as cutting red tape, has been $10.2 billion in additional regulatory costs.
President Obama falsely called his Executive Order 13563 “unprecedented.” The American Action Forum report notes that all presidents since Jimmy Carter have issued executive orders on regulatory reform.
Mr. Obama described the order's intent as reducing paperwork and avoiding “excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation.” Yet its net effect has proven to be the opposite, according to Sam Batkins, the forum's director of regulatory policy.
“Final rules have cut 7.9 million hours of paperwork, but Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act have easily outpaced those deregulatory gains,” he told The Washington Free Beacon.
Since fiscal year 2010, paperwork needed to comply with regulations is up by 17 percent, taking an additional 1.5 billion hours — enough to occupy 750,000 full-time workers. Paperwork hours to comply just with Department of Health and Human Services regulations have increased 26 percent.
Those additional burdens, which have hindered the economic recovery, are bad enough. But just as appalling — and just as characteristic of this big-government White House — is the gall displayed by the Obama administration when it claims to be cutting red tape when the opposite is true.
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 â 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.