Obama: 7 proposed regulations would each top $1B (letter to Speaker in defense of regulations)

[alp227]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says his administration is considering seven new government regulations that would cost the economy more than $1 billion each a year, a tally Republicans will pounce on to argue that Congress needs the power to approve costly government rules.

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Obama lists four proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules and three Transportation Department rules estimated to cost in excess of $1 billion. One of the proposed EPA rules — an update to the health-based standard for smog — is estimated to cost the economy between $19 billion and $90 billion.

The letter, dated Tuesday, comes as the Republican-controlled House prepares to consider legislation that would require congressional approval for any new regulations that would impose a significant cost on industries.

The four environmental regulations, which target air pollution and coal residue primarily from coal-fired power plants, already have been attacked by House Republicans, who have said they would kill jobs and harm the economy.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Obama-7-proposed-regulations-would-each-top-1B-2147430.php

---

Washingtonpost.com blog: "In letter to Boehner, Obama defends federal regulations" has an excerpt from the letter: "Executive Order 13563, issued early this year, imposes a series of new requirements designed to reduce regulatory burdens and costs. As you are undoubtedly aware, this Executive Order also called for an ambitious Government-wide review of rules now on the books. The review was recently completed, producing reform plans from 26 agencies. A mere fraction of the initiatives described in the plans will save more than $10 billion over the next 5 years; as progress continues, we expect to be able to deliver savings far in excess of that figure."

WhiteHouse.gov blog "The Facts About Regulations"

[Earth_First]

1. Why the FU*K will it cost $90 billion fu*king dollars to monitor air quality?

Who is pocketing the other $88 billion?

[emilyg]

2. Good question.

[JDPriestly]

4. Because people and businesses fail to follow the air quality

guidelines unless the EPA makes them aware of regulations and forces them to comply.

If individuals and above all businesses voluntarily followed regulations or guidelines we would not have to pay people to enforce the regulations. It's a choice that we all make.

In California, our cars have to pass emissions tests. Most of the cost is borne by car owners. Is that true everywhere?

[PonyJon]

5. "Monitoring" is the cheap part "enforcement is the other $88 million. nt

[Psephos]

8. The cost is to the economy. It has nothing to do with the monitoring.

It has everything to do with the implementation.

Meeting the regulatory standard is expensive. That leads to higher costs and prices, which dampen economic activity and impact upon jobs.

This trade-off is to be expected. An accurate summation of the benefits vs. costs lets us decide whether the trade-off is worth it.

The problem is that one's estimate of the costs seems to depend on one's political views. The wingnuts blow everything up by double or triple, while some progs minimize the real effects on economic activity. So there is much heat and little light.

[shanti]

9. follow the money n/t

[sulphurdunn]

3. If employment gets down

to a choice between employing the worker and killing him so he can have a job and another can make a profit, only the suicidally insane will choose the job and the profit.

[former9thward]

6. That is never the choice except for those who want to add drama.

[sulphurdunn]

10. Tell me that after you've

worked awhile in a coal mine or removed asbestos for a living or worked your way up in a chemical plant or at a meat processor or a uranium mine. There's nothing dramatic about slow, painful death.

[madrchsod]

7. another bullshit article from ap writers.