Rules and Regulations

[we vs us]

According to Bloomberg:

Obama's White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven't reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush's father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News.

The average annual cost to businesses under Obama is higher than under his predecessors, the Bloomberg review shows. The increase is estimated to total as little as $100 million or as much as $4.1 billion, or at most three one-hundredths of a percent of the total economy.

The expense to business, however, is only marginally higher than it has been under other presidents:

Obama's White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush's administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg.

The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms. In part that's because $100 million in past years was worth more than it is now due to inflation, Livermore said.

In the last 12 months through the end of September, the cost range of new regulations is estimated to be $8 billion to $9 billion, a decrease from 2010, according to non-partisan Government Accountability Office reports analyzed by Bloomberg. That total put the average annual cost of regulations under Obama at about $7 billion to $11 billion, compared with the $6.9 billion average from 1981 through 2008 in current dollars, according to the OMB data.

This does not include any of the HCR reform, but it's clear that everything outside that circle, from EPA rules to labor restrictions, totals a fraction of a fraction of the total economy. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html

[nathanm]

Don't you know that Bloomberg is a mouthpiece of the left? 

[we vs us]

Don't you know that Bloomberg is a mouthpiece of the left? 

It's true.  I got it in my early morning email blitz from the Rainforest Action Network. 

[jacobi]

The federal regulations on my slave trade business are really hurting my profits.  Deregulate the slave trade!  Repeal the 13th amendment!  I should be able to do whatever I want without governmental interferance as long as I make profit in a free economy.  The cheep labor will invigorate our economy.  Their corpses make great road-bed filler.  Oh I also need the regulations removed from my corpse to roadbed filler conversion business. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I keep hearing all the noise about unwarranted government intrusion in the form of onerous regulations.  I have asked for some examples here in the past but still haven't heard a thing.  I will submit - again - that it is a red herring of BS by the "you-know-who".  Anyone who has had much experience in industry knows at least something about OSHA.  And probably at least a little about the EPA.  Having read way too much of many regulations and various industrial standards in the past, I also submit that even though a lot of it is mind numbingly detailed and yes, even boring, they ARE written to cover pretty much any and all situation that might be encountered.  

And the excruciating detail is in great part a direct result of the way many, if not most try to look for any way they can to get around doing what they know is the proper way to do things.  Because it might cost a couple bucks.  And even WITH those regulations in place, there are still many who rationalize and excuse short cuts.  Hence, the death and dismemberment of thousands of people a year in this country at work.

So, again, which ones are the regulations that are "too much" a burden for the country?  Come on,...just one little example!!


Well, maybe the ones that caused the Cuyahoga river to not catch on fire anymore were just a little too much...that was way cool!!!  Burning water!!  Wow!

[heironymouspasparagus]

I mentioned this before, but this topic is more....topical....

McDonald's is building 700 more restaurants in China.  Now all those kids can get Happy Meals with toys in them they made themselves!!  (Watch out for the melamine!!)

Sadly, that won't happen here...in large part due to those pesky "unwarranted government intrusion" regulations banning children from working in factories.         

Please note the irony/satire/sarcasm...

[Red Arrow]

Hence, the death and dismemberment of thousands of people a year in this country at work.

So, again, which ones are the regulations that are "too much" a burden for the country?  Come on,...just one little example!!

Death and dismemberment sounds more like OSHA than EPA so...

One of my college friend's father owned a construction equipment sales company (scaffolding and that kind of stuff).  OHSA required them to put a split ring toilet seat on the one toilet they had which was not available to the public.  Not particularly onerous but why require it?  Just to establish that OSHA is in control? This is not intended as a rhetorical question.  If someone has a good reason, I'll at least listen.

On the flip side, if any of you have been to the Pawnee Steam Show, you know why OSHA exists.  It's a wonder any of our early 20th Century farmers survived to go bankrupt.

[Red Arrow]

Sadly, that won't happen here...in large part due to those pesky "unwarranted government intrusion" regulations banning children from working in factories.         

I happen to agree with some government regulations and "those pesky "unwarranted government intrusion" regulations banning children from working in factories" happen to be some of them.  However, what gives us the right to impose our values on a different culture beyond not buying their products?   We think it's the right thing to do but that is due to our culture.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Death and dismemberment sounds more like OSHA than EPA so...

One of my college friend's father owned a construction equipment sales company (scaffolding and that kind of stuff).  OHSA required them to put a split ring toilet seat on the one toilet they had which was not available to the public.  Not particularly onerous but why require it?  Just to establish that OSHA is in control? This is not intended as a rhetorical question.  If someone has a good reason, I'll at least listen.

On the flip side, if any of you have been to the Pawnee Steam Show, you know why OSHA exists.  It's a wonder any of our early 20th Century farmers survived to go bankrupt.

Not sure where that came from.  Urban myth?  It is not in the regulation.  (CFR 29. Subpart J, 1910.141).  The link below shows the requirements.  With the exception of section (c)(1)(i), it is all pretty much common sense and common decency that most people would have learned by at least 3rd grade (this tells one how many facilities are required for x number of employees).  But then there are people like John Pickle, here in town (John Pickle Company) who still don't get it after 60 years.  So, we have OSHA.

I have worked in places without split rings and while it was ok with OSHA, it certainly was a little more difficult to clean than the split rings.  Yes, one part of the job was janitor.  I also got to go to the bosses horse facility and shovel out the barn twice a year - and was required to wear face mask and eye protection in the "dusty" environment. 

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9790

[heironymouspasparagus]

I happen to agree with some government regulations and "those pesky "unwarranted government intrusion" regulations banning children from working in factories" happen to be some of them.  However, what gives us the right to impose our values on a different culture beyond not buying their products?   We think it's the right thing to do but that is due to our culture.

The McDonald's part of it was the satire.  But, yes, if we are gonna buy tennis shoes, we have not only the right, but the obligation to impose our values on the conditions those shoes are made in.  If it is morally wrong here to abuse children, it is also wrong there, and not open to subjective morality.  Wow, sounds like those Jerry Falwell types who go on about Sharia law! 

So, yeah, I have a very strict moral code that I consider to be universal to the entire human race - it just isn't as all-inclusive as some, especially as relate to true cultural differences.  Abuse of children falls into that - it IS a universal moral for the entire Earth population.

[Red Arrow]

Not sure where that came from.  Urban myth?  It is not in the regulation.  

I have worked in places without split rings and while it was ok with OSHA, it certainly was a little more difficult to clean than the split rings.  Yes, one part of the job was janitor.  I also got to go to the bosses horse facility and shovel out the barn twice a year - and was required to wear face mask and eye protection in the "dusty" environment. 

Company was friend's father and mother, maybe one other person. The only issue was the toilet seat.  I just remember him complaining about it in the early 70s.  It may have possibly been an overly zealous OSHA person injecting his/her personal interpretations into the regulations.  OSHA is not in itself a bad concept.  Lack of accountability for regulations and enforcement is the problem in my opinion.  Same problem with EPA.  No one wants to be a statistic but diminishing returns for investment and lack of personal responsibility on the part of the "victims" are also issues.

I've been a janitor, lawn mower operator, pipe painter, manual gravel spreader, metal roof sealer/painter.  Fortunately it was a summer job for 2 summers while attending college.  I don't remember whether there were split rings or not.  I didn't intend for it to be a career.  There were 2 kinds of toilet paper.  The kind the boss bought and the kind the employees bought on their own dime hanging in adjacent dispensers.   I was also a manual dirt mover the summer after I graduated from college while waiting for my draft notice to the military.  Haven't done the horse barn "dusty" environment.  I worked part time for a few months, while I was in the Navy, in my favorite bar cleaning up in the morning (I worked evening shift in the Navy).  I got enough to pay for my beer the next night.

[nathanm]

I happen to agree with some government regulations and "those pesky "unwarranted government intrusion" regulations banning children from working in factories" happen to be some of them.  However, what gives us the right to impose our values on a different culture beyond not buying their products?   We think it's the right thing to do but that is due to our culture.

I agree we shouldn't necessarily impose our values on others. However, that does not mean we should allow others to exploit that difference in values.

[Red Arrow]

The McDonald's part of it was the satire.  But, yes, if we are gonna buy tennis shoes, we have not only the right, but the obligation to impose our values on the conditions those shoes are made in.  If it is morally wrong here to abuse children, it is also wrong there, and not open to subjective morality.  Wow, sounds like those Jerry Falwell types who go on about Sharia law! 

So, yeah, I have a very strict moral code that I consider to be universal to the entire human race - it just isn't as all-inclusive as some, especially as relate to true cultural differences.  Abuse of children falls into that - it IS a universal moral for the entire Earth population.

So should we drop bombs on the factories using children to make sure the children cannot be forced to work there?  Where does our responsibility end?  We could certainly not buy the tennis shoes.  I wear New Balance even though the model I like is $120 at Academy Sports.  Keep in mind that I agree that child labor is wrong due to my upbringing in "our" culture.  We might think differently if having our kids work was the difference between eating or not.

[Red Arrow]

I agree we shouldn't necessarily impose our values on others. However, that does not mean we should allow others to exploit that difference in values.

In a better world, we could tell the offending countries to keep their products until they shaped up.  Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.  The same thing applies to policies we find offensive in the Middle East.

[heironymouspasparagus]

So should we drop bombs on the factories using children to make sure the children cannot be forced to work there?  Where does our responsibility end?  We could certainly not buy the tennis shoes.  I wear New Balance even though the model I like is $120 at Academy Sports.  Keep in mind that I agree that child labor is wrong due to my upbringing in "our" culture.  We might think differently if having our kids work was the difference between eating or not.

Bombs?  Where did that come from??

If our companies are establishing the manufacturing relationship, then they have the obligation to "channel" our collective morality, as well as follow the laws of our country.  I guess where it starts to fall apart is whether the laws cover this - in general, they don't seem to.  So, I guess it's all right - no harm, no foul.