Waivers for religion?

[Townsend]

The Administration offers a workaround:

So can all employers refuse on religious grounds?

[Gaspar]

Since you brought up the topic of burdensome regulations - I will repeat a question that I have asked many times here and that has been ducked all those times - which burdensome regulations are they?  We keep hearing that particular phrase out of "The Script", yet there are no real examples to offer.  This one is not actually all that burdensome due to Obama, since, as noted, it has pretty much been covered since Bush.

I know there is no desire to answer the primary question, let alone follow up questions, but there it is....again.

Sure.

In his first two years in office the federal government issued 132 "economically significant" rules, according to Susan Dudley of George Washington University. That is about 40% more than the annual rate under both George Bush junior and Bill Clinton. Many rules associated with the newly passed health-care and financial-reform laws are still to come.

Members of congress have issued several reports detailing how these regulatory changes effect industry and negatively impact the economy.  Mostly by increasing energy costs.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=ba11c7e3-2078-4e37-817c-04c72190be70

Here are the top 10 according to Eric Cantor that Congress has/will/is attempting to repeal.

NLRB's Boeing Ruling (Week of September 12): On April 20, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against The Boeing Company for the alleged transfer of an assembly line from Washington to South Carolina. Yet, not one union employee at Boeing's Puget Sound facility has lost his or her job as a result of the proposed South Carolina plant. Still, the NLRB is pursuing a "restoration order" against Boeing that would cost South Carolina thousands of jobs and deter future investment in the United States. H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, sponsored by Rep. Tim Scott (SC), would take the common sense step of preventing the NLRB from restricting where an employer can create jobs in the United States.

Utility MACT and CSAPR (Week of September 19): The Administration's new maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR) for utility plants will affect electricity prices for nearly all American consumers. In total, 1,000 power plants are expected to be affected. The result for middle class Americans? Annual electricity bill increases in many parts of the country of anywhere from 12 to 24 percent. H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (OK), would require a cumulative economic analysis for specific EPA rules, and specifically delay the final date for both the utility MACT and CSAPR rules until the full impact of the Obama Administration's regulatory agenda has been studied.

Boiler MACT (Week of October 3): From hospitals to factories to colleges, thousands of major American employers use boilers that will be impacted by the EPA's new "boiler MACT" rules. These new stringent rules will impose billions of dollars in capital and compliance costs, increase the cost of many goods and services, and put over 200,000 jobs at risk. The American forest and paper industry, for example, will see an additional burden of at least $5-7 billion. H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA), would provide a legislative stay of four interrelated rules issued by the EPA in March of this year. The legislation would also provide the EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs, and provide employers with an extended compliance period.

Cement MACT (Week of October 3): The "cement MACT" and two related rules are expected to affect approximately 100 cement plants in America, setting exceedingly stringent requirements that will be cost-prohibitive or technically infeasible to achieve. Increased costs and regulatory uncertainty for the American cement industry—the foundation of nearly all infrastructure projects—are likely to offshore thousands of American jobs. Ragland, Alabama, for example, recently saw the suspension of a $350 million cement production facility, putting 1,500 construction jobs on hold and additional permanent and high-paying plant operation jobs in limbo. H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (OK), would provide a legislative stay of these three rules and provide EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs, and provide employers with an extended compliance period.

Coal Ash (October/November): These anti-infrastructure regulations, commonly referred to as the "coal ash" rules, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, affecting everything from concrete production to building products like wall board. The result is an estimated loss of well over 100,000 jobs. H.R. 2273, the Coals Residuals Reuse and Management Act, sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (WV), would create an enforceable minimum standard for the regulation of coal ash by the states, allowing their use in a safe manner that protects jobs.

Grandfathered Health Plans (November/December): We all remember when President Obama promised Americans that if they liked their health care plan they could keep it. Now, the Obama Administration has been issuing further restrictions against those previously protected plans. The result, by the Administration's own estimates, will be a loss of 49 to 80 percent of small employer plans, 34 to 64 percent of large employer plans, and 40 to 67 percent of individual insurance plans. Meanwhile, employers losing their grandfathered status will face steep penalties, increasing their costs and negatively affecting wages and job growth. The Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce committees will soon be working on legislation to repeal these ObamaCare restrictions.

Ozone Rule (Winter): This effective ban or restriction on construction and industrial growth for much of America is possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama Administration regulations. Consequences would reach far across the U.S. economy, resulting in an estimated cost of $1 trillion or more over a decade and millions of jobs. Unlike her predecessors, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is pushing for a premature readjustment of the current ozone standards, dramatically increasing the number of "nonattainment" areas. The new readjustment rule is expected early this fall and I expect the Energy and Commerce Committee to act swiftly to prevent its implementation, in order to protect American jobs.

Farm Dust (Winter): The EPA is expected to issue revised standards for particulate matter (PM) in the near future. Any downward revision to PM standards will significantly impact economic growth and jobs for businesses and people throughout rural America that create dust, like the farmer in Atkinson, Illinois, who raised his concerns with the President at a town hall earlier this month. While the President may have sent him on a bureaucratic wild goose chase, the House will act promptly on H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Kristi Noem (SD). H.R. 1633 would protect American farmers and jobs by establishing a one year prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse PM and limiting federal regulation of dust where it is already regulated under state and local laws.

Greenhouse Gas (Winter): The EPA's upcoming greenhouse gas new source performance standards (NSPS) will affect new and existing oil, natural gas, and coal-fired power plants, as well as oil refineries, nationwide. While the impact on the economy and jobs are likely to be severe, the rules are quickly moving forward, once again revealing the Administration's disregard for the consequences of their policies on our jobs crisis. Again, I expect Chairman Upton and the Energy and Commerce Committee to move swiftly in the coming months to protect American jobs and consumers.

NLRB's Ambush Elections (Winter): This summer, the NLRB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that could significantly alter current union representation election procedures, giving both employers and employees little time to react to union formations in the future. The result will increase labor costs and uncertainty for nearly all private employers in the U.S. The House will soon consider legislation that will bring common sense to union organizing procedures to protect the interests of both employers and their workers.
http://majorityleader.gov/blog/2011/08/memo-on-upcoming-jobs-agenda.html

75 major regulations and 219 "economically significant" regulations are set to go into effect sucking over $380 billion out of the economy over the next 10 years.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-report-cites-regulatory-tsunami-under-obama

This report covers most of them:
http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/9.13.11_Broken_Government_Report.pdf

[Conan71]

I need to read further into it, but the boiler MACT may mean I will retire a wealthy man while everyone else gets fleeced.  Screw you guys, I'm getting mine!

[Townsend]

Screw you guys, I'm getting mine!

You're a televangelist?

[Teatownclown]

I need to read further into it, but the boiler MACT may mean I will retire a wealthy man BECAUSE OF OBAMA while everyone else gets fleeced.  Screw you guys, I'm getting mine!

Oh, that's rich.

Towney, good line.


While everyone is criticizing the pres on this Catholics being forced to pay for birth control, many think he has screwed up, and handed the right an issue of religious freedom.

The reality is, in this week where the economy, Romney's issue, is getting better, Rick Santorum is racing to the top on social issues. Now the GOP is poised to coalesce around a guy who wants the government to come into your bedroom and take your birth control pills away. Good luck getting women's votes for him. This controversy helps Rick and hurts Mitt and that helps Obama.  Now  that he has announced his compromise, the idea that Obama hates Christians looks silly, and for normal people, the issue goes away.  But GOP voters will vote on it, Santorum will campaign on it and Mitt will leap even further to the right on it and have to defend opposing birth control in the general election. They have been played, and they don't even know it.

Bonus: the controversy has served to inform all women that the health care law means no more co-pays for birth control pills. For the average woman, that's worth several hundred dollars a year. Money they will lose if they elect a GOP president.

Obama may not have intended this from the beginning, but he's like Tiger in his prime. He may not have intended to hit the ball into the sand trap. But his game is so good, he can still birdie from the trap.

You can tell Fox thinks its a losing issue now...they have drummed up a new story on Fast and Furious.

[nathanm]

I kinda like better fly ash regulations:

[Conan71]

Bonus: the controversy has served to inform all women that the health care law means no more co-pays for birth control pills. For the average woman, that's worth several hundred dollars a year. Money they will lose if they elect a GOP president.

Jimmy hats are cheaper and pose less danger to a woman's health.

Hey, if the EPA has it's way, I might just have to vote for Obama in November.

[nathanm]

Jimmy hats are cheaper and pose less danger to a woman's health.

For nonsmoking women and women over 35, there are essentially no health risks from low-dose hormonal birth control, and even less from an IUD unless the doc messes up the insertion. Also, generic BCP is cheaper than the hats even when you have to pay full price. IDK if you're aware of what condoms cost these days, but you might take a glance next time you're at the grocery store or pharmacy.

The cost and health risks involved in pregnancy are far higher than the cost and health risks involved in any birth control.

[Conan71]

For nonsmoking women and women over 35, there are essentially no health risks from low-dose hormonal birth control, and even less from an IUD unless the doc messes up the insertion. Also, generic BCP is cheaper than the hats even when you have to pay full price. IDK if you're aware of what condoms cost these days, but you might take a glance next time you're at the grocery store or pharmacy.

The cost and health risks involved in pregnancy are far higher than the cost and health risks involved in any birth control.

You obviously didn't see my tongue sticking through my cheek did you?

Unless a woman has a real strong sex drive, I don't imagine she'd run up a higher raincoat tab than the cost of pills (w/o insurance of course).   

[nathanm]

Unless a woman has a real strong sex drive, I don't imagine she'd run up a higher raincoat tab than the cost of pills (w/o insurance of course).   

I don't know, four bucks a month doesn't seem like it would buy that much..protection.

[Conan71]

I don't know, four bucks a month doesn't seem like it would buy that much..protection.

That would be more than enough for someone I used to date.  Note the used to date part of that.

[AquaMan]

While everyone is criticizing the pres on this Catholics being forced to pay for birth control, many think he has screwed up, and handed the right an issue of religious freedom.

The reality is, in this week where the economy, Romney's issue, is getting better, Rick Santorum is racing to the top on social issues. Now the GOP is poised to coalesce around a guy who wants the government to come into your bedroom and take your birth control pills away. Good luck getting women's votes for him. This controversy helps Rick and hurts Mitt and that helps Obama.  Now  that he has announced his compromise, the idea that Obama hates Christians looks silly, and for normal people, the issue goes away.  But GOP voters will vote on it, Santorum will campaign on it and Mitt will leap even further to the right on it and have to defend opposing birth control in the general election. They have been played, and they don't even know it.

Bonus: the controversy has served to inform all women that the health care law means no more co-pays for birth control pills. For the average woman, that's worth several hundred dollars a year. Money they will lose if they elect a GOP president.

Obama may not have intended this from the beginning, but he's like Tiger in his prime. He may not have intended to hit the ball into the sand trap. But his game is so good, he can still birdie from the trap.

You can tell Fox thinks its a losing issue now...they have drummed up a new story on Fast and Furious.

Smart post. Either Obama is an unrecognized political genius or he just improvises well. Either way the republicans running for office look more like CPAC devotees. Completely out of step with women's interests and Santorum is their guy. Mitt announces he's " Severely Conservative" which might as wll be "demonically, dementedly, insanely, bizarrely, maniacly, heroically" conservative.

Okay, we get it. You're against contraception, personhood begins at the moment the sperm enters the egg, and you can't be too far right. Let's see how that plays with a moderate public.

[Hoss]

Smart post. Either Obama is an unrecognized political genius or he just improvises well. Either way the republicans running for office look more like CPAC devotees. Completely out of step with women's interests and Santorum is their guy. Mitt announces he's " Severely Conservative" which might as wll be "demonically, dementedly, insanely, bizarrely, maniacly, heroically" conservative.

Okay, we get it. You're against contraception, personhood begins at the moment the sperm enters the egg, and you can't be too far right. Let's see how that plays with a moderate public.

That's known as 'alienating independents'...

[heironymouspasparagus]

Trial balloons early in the process so will be forgotten in the din later on.

[TulsaRufnex]

You can tell Fox thinks its a losing issue now...they have drummed up a new story on Fast and Furious.

Ah, the quandry of having to argue the merits of institutional liberty (church) versus individual liberty (women)....