Obama's Regulatory Contradiction: Health And Finance Rules Exempt From Review

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 08:48:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is why Obama's critique of government regulation was stupid:

President Barack Obama's government-wide review of federal regulations will have little effect on two of the president's major regulatory victories: an overhaul of Wall Street and the health-care market, according to a White House budget official. The review focuses on old, outdated regulations so new ones written as part of the health-care and financial overhaul likely won't be affected, an official at the White House Office of Management and Budget said.

The argument is indefensible. What makes a "new" regulation less likely to suffer from infirmities than an "old" one? Darryl Issa will, rightly, have a field day with this.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's Contradictory Views On Regulation | Process v. Substance: Passing Laws Is The Means, Not The Ends >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Regulatory Contradiction: Health And Finance Rules Exempt From Review | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, I guess we've found one (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Anne on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:51:45 AM EST

thing Obama's willing to "look back" on, finally, but I have the sense that the regulations his administration decides to do something about will likely skew the benefits to business - and I'm not sure that usually means a benefit for us.

As for the health and finance regulations not getting the once-over, all I have to say to that is: "for now."

New regulations passed under Obama, old ones not (none / 0) (#1)
by Dan the Man on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:30:55 AM EST

Old regulations, because they were passed in the pre-Obama era, cannot be trusted. New regulations, because they were approved by Obama, can be trusted. Pretty simple point of view that the Obama Administration is taking.

: All of his new regulation though (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:49:43 AM EST

mostly only empowered Wall Street and corporations, that was really why we couldn't have a public option. Is there going to be anything in this new regulating that will empower the people in way that would give them a voice along with the big money? I doubt it. What has this administration decided to do about natural gas fracking that is destroying people's property and ground water supplies....not a lot so far because that would be business unfriendly. I trust this administration about as far as I can throw them.

Since the whole excercise is mainly optics (none / 0) (#2)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:41:05 AM EST

anyway, the way they talk about it is important. Whoever this spokesperson is should have said they are reviewing everything. Of course it would be no surprise if the review turned up few needed changes to regulations they themselves have written in the last two years.

: Yep (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:11:02 AM EST

Its not stupid if its a good start. (none / 0) (#3)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:42:15 AM EST

His point on FDA holding saccharine safe for human consumption while EPA holds it as hazardous is just common sense. Agencies regulating at cross purposes raises cost and reduces overall standard of living for no good purpose.

not really (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by CST on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:05:13 AM EST

just because it's safe for human consumption doesn't mean I want companies dumping it in the water. What does that accomplish? It's just more cr@p in water that doesn't belong there, doing god only knows what to the ecosphere.


So its OK for you? (none / 0) (#12)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:01:09 AM EST

So its OK for you to flush a half bottle down the toilet but some "company" spilling a quarter ounce down the drain is a federal offense. Is that common sense?

As you observe its not just the substance but the amount of that substance. Where we have some disagreement is if the identity of the spiller (you or a company) makes the spill any more or less dangerous.


umm (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by CST on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:42:26 AM EST

you are d@mn right it's about the amount.

Some "company" isn't spilling a quarter ounce down the drain. And what they would spill down the drain is not the same thing that I would spill down the drain, that's not how EPA regs work.

"Saccharin and its salts are listed
hazardous wastes...

The U-waste code applies only if the
chemical is present in a pure or
technical grade form, or is the sole
active ingredient in the chemical
formulation; in addition, the chemical
must be unused.

The U202 listing is narrow and does
not apply to other discarded materials
that merely contain saccharin or its
salts, e.g., discarded products that
contain saccharin as a sweetening agent."

emphasis mine.


: Oops (none / 0) (#21)
by Yman on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 09:23:50 AM EST

I hate when those pesky facts mess up a good storyline ...

To what dollar cost? (none / 0) (#4)
by observed on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:47:12 AM EST

Your example sounds positively trivial.
I can come up with a long list on the other side of life-saving regulations which businesses try to skirt to save a few pennies---not to mention huge issues like asbestos and lead, where if we had the civilized approach of the Chinese to white collar crime, there would be some well-deserved executions.


I think that's completely wrong (none / 0) (#5)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:47:44 AM EST

I have some experience with government regulations, and the goal should not be to use this as a chance to re-litigate all of the regs just put in place. The goal is stuff buried in CFR books on my shelf that make no sense anymore.

Good thing sensible Republicans (none / 0) (#7)
by observed on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:51:38 AM EST

will have the major say in this initiative, then.


Why not review all the regs? (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:10:31 AM EST

Your argument makes no sense.


Any estimate of the amount of time (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:32:28 AM EST

and no. of federal employees required to review all fed. regs.?


Heh (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:34:40 AM EST

Job Creation!! (none / 0) (#17)
by observed on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:12:26 PM EST

More money-leeching federal employees. (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:16:46 PM EST

[snk.]


: Why not pay them with money saved (none / 0) (#19)
by observed on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:18:13 PM EST

via gouging pension funds?

It makes complete sense (none / 0) (#20)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 01:19:19 PM EST

from a partisan perspective. Why would the POTUS, from every practical and political perspective, want to review the regs that his administration just put into effect.

Review the stuff created on the other guy's watch. Otherwise, you risk giving additional ammunition to the critics of your new legislation.

Besides, the new regs are so new that they haven't been properly tested to see if they actually work and they'll obviously pass the cost thresholds because there is no long term data yet and we'd have to go off of uncertain projections.


There really is nothing worse than a (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:10:12 AM EST

bad regulation. Just ask our current administration....and then read this at your own risk :)

The Securities and Exchange Commission has announced that Eileen Rominger, the global chief investment officer of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, has been named its director of investment management.
Ms. Rominger, 56, is to begin her new job in February. Given how much the S.E.C. and Goldman Sachs have tangled in the last year, her first few days could be a bit awkward.

It really is going to be a screwing over of such proportions that everything will be screwed until there isn't one screw left for any of the savvy businessmen and businesswomen.

Who elected Wayne La Pierre president? (none / 0) (#22)
by Sweet Sue on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:41:59 AM EST

"...the guns didn't cause the mental issues. Very, very true"

They don't kill people, either-oh, wait a minute.
Somehow, I don't think James Holmes could have murdered twelve people with his mighty, Thor like fists.