Do you know what the Regulatory Flexibility Act is? In its earliest form, it has been on the books since 1976. It has the mandate of assessing the impact of federal regulations on small businesses in America. If possible, it is supposed to allow for regulations that are less costly and restrictive. By federal law, any given administration is required to release the results of the regulatory impact studies they have performed. As has been so often the case with the Obama administration, it is being ignored. I would like to know why.
United States Senator Jim Inhofe, R-OK, says he knows why the Obama administration has refused to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA. His explanation, which I find more than a little plausible, is simple. Barack Obama does not want the American people to know what the impact of his upcoming regulatory blitzkrieg will be. That’s probably because it will result in lost American jobs. In other words, if Barack Obama is reelected and is able to enact his regulatory agenda, the unemployment rate will undoubtedly go up.
(Fox News) President Obama will not comply with a federal law requiring him to release his regulatory agenda because he doesn’t want Americans voters to know the “terrible cost” it would have on the economy should he win re-election — include the loss of an estimated 887,000 jobs annually, says Sen. James Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Inhofe cites the Regulatory Flexibility Act that requires federal agencies to assess the impact of their regulations on small businesses. He says Obama failed to comply with the law twice over the past year – specifically the April and October deadlines.
“President Obama is refusing to comply with the law that requires him to publish forthcoming regulations because he doesn’t want the American public to know the terrible cost of the regulatory barrage he plans to unleash in a second term,” Inhofe said. “So instead of being honest with the American people about what’s in store if he wins, he’s been trying to hide the fact that he intends to move forward with a slew of rules that will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and dramatically raise the cost of energy on American families.”
What is President Obama trying to hide until after the election? Possibly the economic impact of the regulations that are waiting in the wings?
The projected loss of 887,000 jobs annually is from a National Economic Research Associates report last month. The international economic firm in its 129-page report states the coal industry would be hit hard and the job losses would continue through 2034.
Inhofe, also last month, released a report stating the Environmental Protection Agency has delayed action or “punted” on numerous regulations while Obama tries to “earn votes” for a second term.
The 14-page report states when the agency approves the roughly one dozen regulations next year in 2013, they will “spell doom” for jobs and economic growth.
The report cites pending regulations on a wide range of environmental-economic issues including those on power plant emissions and hydraulic fracturing and concludes pending, overall regulations on greenhouse gases if enacted would cost $300 billion to $400 billion annual and significantly increase the price of gasoline and home heating.
Could it be he is afraid of how the American people will respond to such an economic hit job? I’m not so sure I wouldn’t classify this as a hit and run, other than the fact that it is no accident it is happening. Obama clearly does not want the American people to know what he is about to do with these regulations. We already know he considers climate change of the utmost importance. More than a few times, we have heard him talk about green energy and the green jobs it will create. Some call it a green economy. We also know what he thinks about the coal industry. He cares not one whit that his agenda will bankrupt the coal companies.
Is this the kind of President we want for America? Do we want to give Obama another four years with which to destroy small businesses? All because of an agenda that necessarily requires raising regulatory costs for businesses, to the point of bankruptcy? Would it not be better for America to have a President who loves businesses and wants to see them thrive? Would it not be more profitable for all Americans to see businesses prosper, instead of languishing into obscurity because of an over-zealous regulatory environment?
I join with Senator Inhofe in asking President Obama to come clean about his regulatory agenda. He should tell the American people what his regulatory impact will be on our country, before we give him four more years. If that happens, the economic situation is likely to worsen, to the point of being an economic hit and run disaster. I would just as soon not see that happen to the country I love. That’s one more reason why I will be voting for Mitt Romney on November 6.