► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category

Fedzilla

by coldwarrior ( 86 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Open thread, Regulation at January 8th, 2016 - 1:00 pm

FEDZILLA IS COMING FOR YOU!!!

2015 was a record-setting year for the Federal Register, according to numbers the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., released Wednesday.

This year’s daily publication of the federal government’s rules, proposed rules and notices amounted to 81,611 pages as of Wednesday, higher than last year’s 77,687 pages and higher than the all-time high of 81,405 pages in 2010 — with one day to go in 2015.
In a blog post on the libertarian think tank’s website, the group’s vice president for policy, Clyde Wayne Crews, said there have been 3,378 final rules and regulations among the pages of the Federal Register this year. Some of the major final rules included the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan and its Waters of the Unites States rule, as well as the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality order.

He said another 2,334 proposed rules were issued in 2015 and are at various stages of consideration. On top of that, President Obama issued 29 executive orders and 31 executive memorandums, among them were agency directives to expand paid family and medical leave and overtime pay.

To combat what he considers to be overregulation, Crews said Congress should repeal the certain statutes, require congressional approval for big rules and enforce maximum requirements set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.

“The House of Representatives passed the REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny) to do that, but the Senate seems disinclined to pass it and force President Obama’s promised veto,” he wrote in his blog. “If Congress isn’t willing to force Obama to explain why unelected should make laws, it must be because the Republican Congress isn’t willing to end over-delegation.”

Why the Rebellion in the GOP?

by coldwarrior ( 126 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Immigration, Open thread, Regulation at December 17th, 2015 - 9:32 am

The Chamber of Commerce GOPsters strike again. The American Worker screwed by BOTH parties

 


Congress' half-trillion dollar spending binge...
Increases deficit by hundreds of billions...
MEETS OBAMA PRIORITIES...
Funds for 'climate' deal...
Planned Parenthood Praises...
Makes it 'harder to repeal Obamacare'...
'Cybersecurity' bill hacked in...
Conservatives give pass on deal they despise!
SESSIONS: THIS is why voters in 'open rebellion'...
AMERICAN WORKER SOLD OUT...

 

The $1.1 trillion omnibus bill includes language that would dramatically increase the number of visas available for foreign workers, setting off alarm bells among conservatives and labor unions.

Congressional leaders quietly slipped the provision into the 2,009-page funding bill, with rank-and-file lawmakers only discovering it Wednesday morning. The move immediately sparked protests from both ends of the political spectrum.
The provision could more than triple the number of H-2B visas for foreign workers seeking jobs at hotels, theme parks, ski resorts, golf courses, landscaping businesses, restaurants and bars. The move is intended to boost the supply of non-agricultural seasonal workers.

“These foreign workers are brought in exclusively to fill blue collar non-farm jobs in hotels, restaurants, construction, truck driving, and many other occupations sought by millions of Americans,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), an outspoken critic of President Obama’s immigration policies, in a statement.

“The GOP-led Congress is about to deliver Obama a four-fold increase to one of the most controversial foreign worker programs. The result? Higher unemployment and lower wages for Americans,” he said.

Sessions estimates the number of H-2B visas will soar from 66,000 to 250,000 because of the language in the omnibus. He took to the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon to protest the maneuver.

HA! Yinz Fools got USED!!! and an addendum of law

by coldwarrior ( 286 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Donald Trump, Education, Open thread, Regulation at December 9th, 2015 - 6:35 am

This is a fairly long article on how these morons protesting in the colleges just got used.

 

Please, have a read! Please read it in its entirety.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/02/congratulations-student-protesters-you-just-got-used/

 

_____

AND…while we are talking about useful idiots, lets look at the law:

 

small matter of the law:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/II/1182

(14) f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

again, mr trump is right, and the elites and scum in the press don’t want you see the above law.

Do read some interesting polling data

 

 

Carbon and Politics

by coldwarrior ( 77 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Environmentalism, Global Warming Hoax, Open thread, Politics, Regulation at August 5th, 2015 - 4:40 am

A quick drive by post:

 

It’s just chock full o’ bad news.  Can/Will the GOP stop this? Do note how politics plays into Obama’s energy plan:

 

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan: All Cost, No Benefit

By Benjamin Zycher

On Monday President Obama announced the final “clean power plan” regulation for greenhouse gas emissions from electric generating plants, the centerpiece of the broader Climate Action Plan being implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency. Amid the many assertions about the looming climate crisis confronting “the planet,” about which more below, one central parameter was conspicuous by its absence. To wit: What effect on future temperatures—that, after all, is the supposed benefit of the rule—would this regulation provide?

Interestingly enough, the president did not tell us. Nor did the EPA provide an estimate of temperature effects so obviously central to the discussion when it published the rule in draft form in June last year. Amazingly, EPA omits this even from its regulatory impact analysis of the final rule: Table 4-1 (“Climate Effects”) informs us that the “global climate impacts” from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide (presumably, all greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalents), of ozone, of particulates, and of other greenhouse gases have not been quantified or monetized. EPA directs interested readers to the administration’s deeply flawed analysis of the “social cost of carbon,” which does not answer this central question; and to its own “integrated science assessments” and to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, without specific references. (Neither the ISAs nor IPCC answers this basic question either.) EPA does note, however, that it “assess[es] these co-benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods.” Wow.

It is not as if this question cannot be answered; that is what climate models are for, whatever their massive failings. EPA itself uses the MAGICC/SCENGEN model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. So: Let’s apply that model not just to the clean power plan, but to the broader climate action plan, which envisions a 17 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. The temperature reduction in the year 2100: fifteen one-thousandths of a degree. The effect would be too small even to be measured, let alone to affect sea levels and cyclones and all the rest. If we include the pseudo-agreement between the U.S. and China that was announced last November (even though the Chinese effectively disavowed it almost immediately), we can assume an additional 10 percent reduction by the U.S. by 2025, with no actual reduction by the Chinese. This gets us another one one-hundredth of a degree, for a grand total of twenty-five one-thousandths of a degree. A similar exercise assuming large cuts by the Chinese and by the rest of the industrialized world, costing $600-750 billion per year inflicted disproportionately upon the world’s poor, would reduce global temperatures by about four tenths of a degree by 2100.

And so the reluctance on the part of the president and the EPA to tell us what we are getting in exchange for a large increase in power costs and reliability risks is easy to explain: The answer is embarrassing, so much so that even inserting it into a Friday news dump would not work. That is why the EPA’s analysis of the new rule assumes a deeply dubious array of “co-benefits” in the form of particulate reductions and other impacts that are simply invented out of whole cloth and/or that already are counted as justifications for such other regulatory policies as the proposed ozone rule, the proposed particulate rule, and the utility mercury rule recently invalidated by the Supreme Court. Without such machinations, the clean power plan would collapse as a regulatory framework, because it is all cost and no benefit, even apart from its legal weaknesses now about to be the subject of massive litigation.

The president during his comments did not skimp in terms of his description of the adverse climate impacts awaiting mankind if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced substantially. As with an estimate of the temperature effects of his policies, he did not offer much actual evidence. Accordingly: The temperature record is ambiguous, as is the correlation of GHG concentrations and the rate of sea-level increases. The Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers do not differ by a statistically significant amount from the respective 1981-2010 averages. The Arctic ice cover is near the bottom, but within, the relevant range, and the Antarctic ice cover is near the top—and exceeds in some months—the relevant range. Tornado counts and intensities are in a long-term decline. The frequency and accumulated energy of tropical cyclones are near their lowest levels since satellite measurements began in the early 1970s. U.S. wildfires are not correlated with the temperature record or with increases in GHG concentrations. The Palmer Drought Severity Index shows no trend since 1895. Over the last century, flooding in the U.S. has not been correlated with increased GHG concentrations. World per capita food production has increased and undernourishment has decreased, both more-or-less monotonically, since 1993.

It is no accident that the Clean Power Plan would raise energy costs disproportionately in red states, thus reducing their competitive advantages over blue ones? Do not underestimate the power of wealth redistribution as a force driving policymaking in the Beltway. The president repeatedly used the phrase “carbon pollution,” a propaganda term designed to end debate before it begins by assuming the answer to the underlying policy question. Carbon dioxide is not “carbon” and it is not a pollutant, as a minimum atmospheric concentration of it is necessary for life itself. By far the most important GHG in terms of the radiative (warming) properties of the atmosphere is water vapor; does the president believe that it too is a “pollutant”? Presumably he does not, because ocean evaporation is a natural process. Well, so are volcanic eruptions, but no one argues that the massive amounts of particulates and toxins emitted by volcanoes are not pollutants. The climate debate is desperately in need of honesty and seriousness, two conditions characteristic of neither the Beltway nor the climate industry.

Benjamin Zycher is the John G. Searle scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.