Saturday, December 17, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Regulations from Dummies
From Town Hall:
Regulations FROM Dummies
Brett McMahon
Dec 16, 2011
Sign-Up
Quick question: What is the most obvious thing keeping us from an economic recovery led by job creation? If you answered the increasingly burdensome mountain regulatory red tape from the government, you’d be in the heavy majority of the country who thinks that way as well. If you were to ask the current White House the same question, you’d get a completely different answer (and a list of excuses, blames, and finger pointing).
In a fantastic article this week in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Regulation for Dummies”, the Journal takes a look at the evidence of whether costly, job killing regulations have indeed increased during this Administration or not. (Hint: The answer is YES!)
This is not a shock or surprise to small business owners like myself or the millions of others around the country. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy and historically have been where most job creation happens, when we are crushed by over regulation we can’t afford to expand or hire more people.
To quote from the Journal:
The evidence is overwhelming that the Obama regulatory surge is one reason the current economic recovery has been so lackluster by historical standards. Rather than nurture an economy trying to rebuild confidence after a financial heart attack, the Administration pushed through its now-famous blitz of liberal policies on health care, financial services, energy, housing, education and student loans, telecom, labor relations, transportation and probably some other industries we've forgotten. Anyone who thinks this has only minimal impact on business has never been in business.
If you only listened to the President or his top staff give speeches or media interviews, you would walk away convinced that they all understand that you can’t have a serious jobs recovery when Big Government is in the way. But if you follow the news stories out of the NLRB, EPA, HHS, Commerce Dept. or any other part of the Administration, you would see job-crushing regulations emanating at a unprecedented pace. As the Journal eloquently puts it, “Mr. Obama can claim he is the progressive second coming of Teddy Roosevelt as he did in Kansas last week, or he can claim to be a regulatory minimalist, but not both. The facts show he's the former.”
The President can reference Teddy Roosevelt all he wants in his speeches, but to quote Teddy Roosevelt, “Actions speak louder than words.” If this Administration were serious about real jobs recovery and real economic growth, they would be acting to decrease regulations, cut spending, and offering small business friendly reforms.
Final question: Why does the Administration talk one way and act another? The answer is unfortunately bought and paid for by Big Labor. The President’s re-election hopes hinge on convincing the public he is in agreement with them on the problems, while satisfying the demands of Big Labor to keep their money coming in.
Tags: Government Regulations , Labor Unions , Obama Administration , Job killing regulation , job creators
Brett McMahon
Brett McMahon is a spokesman for the Free Enterprise Alliance's Halt The Assault campaign
Breaking on TOWNHALL
Regulations FROM Dummies
Brett McMahon
Dec 16, 2011
Sign-Up
Quick question: What is the most obvious thing keeping us from an economic recovery led by job creation? If you answered the increasingly burdensome mountain regulatory red tape from the government, you’d be in the heavy majority of the country who thinks that way as well. If you were to ask the current White House the same question, you’d get a completely different answer (and a list of excuses, blames, and finger pointing).
In a fantastic article this week in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Regulation for Dummies”, the Journal takes a look at the evidence of whether costly, job killing regulations have indeed increased during this Administration or not. (Hint: The answer is YES!)
This is not a shock or surprise to small business owners like myself or the millions of others around the country. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy and historically have been where most job creation happens, when we are crushed by over regulation we can’t afford to expand or hire more people.
To quote from the Journal:
The evidence is overwhelming that the Obama regulatory surge is one reason the current economic recovery has been so lackluster by historical standards. Rather than nurture an economy trying to rebuild confidence after a financial heart attack, the Administration pushed through its now-famous blitz of liberal policies on health care, financial services, energy, housing, education and student loans, telecom, labor relations, transportation and probably some other industries we've forgotten. Anyone who thinks this has only minimal impact on business has never been in business.
If you only listened to the President or his top staff give speeches or media interviews, you would walk away convinced that they all understand that you can’t have a serious jobs recovery when Big Government is in the way. But if you follow the news stories out of the NLRB, EPA, HHS, Commerce Dept. or any other part of the Administration, you would see job-crushing regulations emanating at a unprecedented pace. As the Journal eloquently puts it, “Mr. Obama can claim he is the progressive second coming of Teddy Roosevelt as he did in Kansas last week, or he can claim to be a regulatory minimalist, but not both. The facts show he's the former.”
The President can reference Teddy Roosevelt all he wants in his speeches, but to quote Teddy Roosevelt, “Actions speak louder than words.” If this Administration were serious about real jobs recovery and real economic growth, they would be acting to decrease regulations, cut spending, and offering small business friendly reforms.
Final question: Why does the Administration talk one way and act another? The answer is unfortunately bought and paid for by Big Labor. The President’s re-election hopes hinge on convincing the public he is in agreement with them on the problems, while satisfying the demands of Big Labor to keep their money coming in.
Tags: Government Regulations , Labor Unions , Obama Administration , Job killing regulation , job creators
Brett McMahon
Brett McMahon is a spokesman for the Free Enterprise Alliance's Halt The Assault campaign
Breaking on TOWNHALL
Over-Criminalized.com Legislatvie Update
From Over-Criminalized.com:
Table of Contents
New Criminal Law Proposals:
H.R. 3550: Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading Act (RESTRICT Act)
H.R. 3541: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011
S. 1947: Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2011
S. 1946: Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011
S. 1928: Stalkers Act of 2011
Updates:
H.R. 1823: Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011
Miscellaneous:
H.R. 3528: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3550: Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading Act (RESTRICT Act)
Sponsor: Duffy (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require certain individuals subject to that act to either place their securities in a blind trust or to report the sale, purchase or exchange of securities.
Status:
12/2/2011: Introduced in House
12/2/2011: Referred to House Administration Committee
12/2/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/2/2011: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Commentary: This bill would make all individuals covered under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 take action in regards to their personal financial securities. Individuals would be required to either place all securities in a qualified blind trust or to file an extensive report within three business days of a transaction. A violation would be punishable by either a civil penalty or a criminal fine under Title 18, United States Code.
H.R. 3541: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011
Sponsor: Franks (R - AZ)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/1/2011: Introduced in House
12/1/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would prohibit abortions that are “sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child.” The proposed statute refers to this as a “sex-selection” or “race-selection” abortion. The several prohibited acts include the knowing performance of an abortion based on race or sex selection abortion; the knowing use of force or threats to injure or intimidate a person for the purpose of coercing a race or sex selection abortion; the knowing solicitation or acceptance of funds for a race or sex selection abortion; and the transport of a woman into the US or across state lines in order to perform a race or sex selection abortion. The attempt of all four of these crimes would also be prohibited. A violation of any of these 8 offenses is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, United States Code. Additionally, there is a reporting requirement for any “physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional” to report a violation to law enforcement or they would be subject to 1 year imprisonment and a fine under Title 18.
S. 1947: Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2011
Sponsor: Blumenthal (D - CT)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit attendance of an animal fighting venture, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/6/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/6/2011: Referred to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee
Commentary: This bill would expand the definition of the prohibited conduct (actus reus) under the current animal fighting statute, 7 U.S.C. Section 2156. The bill would make it unlawful for a person to “knowingly attend” or “cause a minor to attend” an animal fight. Attending a fight would be punishable by up to 1 year of imprisonment and a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code. Causing a minor to attend an animal fight would be punishable by up to 3 years of imprisonment and a fine as authorized by Title 18. This is a companion bill with H.R 2492.
S. 1946: Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011
Sponsor: Whitehouse (D - RI)
Official Title: A bill to require foreign manufacturers of products imported into the United States to establish registered agents in the United States who are authorized to accept service of process against such manufacturers.
Status:
12/5/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/5/2011: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
Commentary: This bill attempts to tie foreign manufacturers to a domestic agent that can be haled into court. The criminal law provision of this bill regards declarations of a person importing a covered product from outside the United States. That person would be required to make an “appropriate inquiry” into the importer’s compliance with this bill by seeking documentation from the exporter and checking the registry established in this bill. Additionally, the importer must also declare that “to the best of the person’s knowledge” the exporter has registered a U.S. agent. An importer must also not file a false declaration. A violation would be punishable “any appropriate penalty under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592) or title 18, United States Code, with respect to importation of a covered product.” There is no appropriate intent requirement for these offenses. Furthermore, the penalty that would be assessed is also unclear, as it specifies a large trade act and the entire criminal code title of the U.S. Code.
S. 1928: Stalkers Act of 2011
Sponsor: Klobuchar (D - MN)
Official Title: A bill to provide criminal penalties for stalking.
Status:
11/30/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/30/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would widen the scope of the federal stalking statute. The bill would add “intimidate” in two locations and would also include conduct on “any interactive computer service or electronic communication service [or] system of interstate commerce” to be reached by this statute. Under this proposal, the attempt of any of these aforementioned offenses would constitute its own offense, and could result in the same penalty as the completed act. A violation in punishable under 18 U.S.C. Section 2261(b), which is scaled based upon the offense facts.
H.R. 1823: Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to modernize, shorten, and simplify the Federal criminal code, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/10/2011: Introduced in House
5/10/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/13/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Commentary: This bill, much like H.R. 1772 from the 111th Congress (also introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner), would replace the entirety of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, simplifying and consolidating existing criminal provisions. In all, it would cut over one-third of the existing criminal code; reorganize the code to make it more user-friendly; and consolidate criminal offenses from other titles so that Title 18 includes all major criminal provisions. In general, it is policy-neutral, meaning that it does not attempt to affect the substance of the law, but there are exceptions. Some of these exceptions include that: (1) attempts and conspiracies to commit criminal offenses would generally be punished in the same manner as the substantive offense unless specifically stated otherwise; and (2) forfeiture (both civil and criminal) and restitution provisions would generally be consolidated unless an alternative framework is otherwise adopted for a particular crime. Significantly, this legislation would create a uniform set of definitions for the entire title, provide consistent definitions for intent requirements, and eliminate criminal offenses that have not been used in the last 30 years or have been subsumed by other offenses.
H.R. 3528: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011
Sponsor: Johnson (D - TX)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the homeless.
Status:
11/30/2011: Introduced in House
11/30/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: Although this bill does not create a new criminal offense, it is still noteworthy because of the potential for future criminal law legislation. This bill would add “homeless status” as a type of “hate crime” that is to be annually recorded by the Attorney General. Currently, statistics are collected on crimes that show prejudice based on “race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” The term “homeless status” would be defined as one who has no “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” or one whose nighttime residence is a public place, a shelter, or other temporary situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
New Criminal Law Proposals:
H.R. 3550: Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading Act (RESTRICT Act)
H.R. 3541: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011
S. 1947: Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2011
S. 1946: Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011
S. 1928: Stalkers Act of 2011
Updates:
H.R. 1823: Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011
Miscellaneous:
H.R. 3528: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3550: Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading Act (RESTRICT Act)
Sponsor: Duffy (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require certain individuals subject to that act to either place their securities in a blind trust or to report the sale, purchase or exchange of securities.
Status:
12/2/2011: Introduced in House
12/2/2011: Referred to House Administration Committee
12/2/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/2/2011: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Commentary: This bill would make all individuals covered under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 take action in regards to their personal financial securities. Individuals would be required to either place all securities in a qualified blind trust or to file an extensive report within three business days of a transaction. A violation would be punishable by either a civil penalty or a criminal fine under Title 18, United States Code.
H.R. 3541: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011
Sponsor: Franks (R - AZ)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/1/2011: Introduced in House
12/1/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would prohibit abortions that are “sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child.” The proposed statute refers to this as a “sex-selection” or “race-selection” abortion. The several prohibited acts include the knowing performance of an abortion based on race or sex selection abortion; the knowing use of force or threats to injure or intimidate a person for the purpose of coercing a race or sex selection abortion; the knowing solicitation or acceptance of funds for a race or sex selection abortion; and the transport of a woman into the US or across state lines in order to perform a race or sex selection abortion. The attempt of all four of these crimes would also be prohibited. A violation of any of these 8 offenses is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, United States Code. Additionally, there is a reporting requirement for any “physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional” to report a violation to law enforcement or they would be subject to 1 year imprisonment and a fine under Title 18.
S. 1947: Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2011
Sponsor: Blumenthal (D - CT)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit attendance of an animal fighting venture, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/6/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/6/2011: Referred to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee
Commentary: This bill would expand the definition of the prohibited conduct (actus reus) under the current animal fighting statute, 7 U.S.C. Section 2156. The bill would make it unlawful for a person to “knowingly attend” or “cause a minor to attend” an animal fight. Attending a fight would be punishable by up to 1 year of imprisonment and a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code. Causing a minor to attend an animal fight would be punishable by up to 3 years of imprisonment and a fine as authorized by Title 18. This is a companion bill with H.R 2492.
S. 1946: Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011
Sponsor: Whitehouse (D - RI)
Official Title: A bill to require foreign manufacturers of products imported into the United States to establish registered agents in the United States who are authorized to accept service of process against such manufacturers.
Status:
12/5/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/5/2011: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
Commentary: This bill attempts to tie foreign manufacturers to a domestic agent that can be haled into court. The criminal law provision of this bill regards declarations of a person importing a covered product from outside the United States. That person would be required to make an “appropriate inquiry” into the importer’s compliance with this bill by seeking documentation from the exporter and checking the registry established in this bill. Additionally, the importer must also declare that “to the best of the person’s knowledge” the exporter has registered a U.S. agent. An importer must also not file a false declaration. A violation would be punishable “any appropriate penalty under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592) or title 18, United States Code, with respect to importation of a covered product.” There is no appropriate intent requirement for these offenses. Furthermore, the penalty that would be assessed is also unclear, as it specifies a large trade act and the entire criminal code title of the U.S. Code.
S. 1928: Stalkers Act of 2011
Sponsor: Klobuchar (D - MN)
Official Title: A bill to provide criminal penalties for stalking.
Status:
11/30/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/30/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would widen the scope of the federal stalking statute. The bill would add “intimidate” in two locations and would also include conduct on “any interactive computer service or electronic communication service [or] system of interstate commerce” to be reached by this statute. Under this proposal, the attempt of any of these aforementioned offenses would constitute its own offense, and could result in the same penalty as the completed act. A violation in punishable under 18 U.S.C. Section 2261(b), which is scaled based upon the offense facts.
H.R. 1823: Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to modernize, shorten, and simplify the Federal criminal code, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/10/2011: Introduced in House
5/10/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/13/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Commentary: This bill, much like H.R. 1772 from the 111th Congress (also introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner), would replace the entirety of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, simplifying and consolidating existing criminal provisions. In all, it would cut over one-third of the existing criminal code; reorganize the code to make it more user-friendly; and consolidate criminal offenses from other titles so that Title 18 includes all major criminal provisions. In general, it is policy-neutral, meaning that it does not attempt to affect the substance of the law, but there are exceptions. Some of these exceptions include that: (1) attempts and conspiracies to commit criminal offenses would generally be punished in the same manner as the substantive offense unless specifically stated otherwise; and (2) forfeiture (both civil and criminal) and restitution provisions would generally be consolidated unless an alternative framework is otherwise adopted for a particular crime. Significantly, this legislation would create a uniform set of definitions for the entire title, provide consistent definitions for intent requirements, and eliminate criminal offenses that have not been used in the last 30 years or have been subsumed by other offenses.
H.R. 3528: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011
Sponsor: Johnson (D - TX)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the homeless.
Status:
11/30/2011: Introduced in House
11/30/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: Although this bill does not create a new criminal offense, it is still noteworthy because of the potential for future criminal law legislation. This bill would add “homeless status” as a type of “hate crime” that is to be annually recorded by the Attorney General. Currently, statistics are collected on crimes that show prejudice based on “race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” The term “homeless status” would be defined as one who has no “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” or one whose nighttime residence is a public place, a shelter, or other temporary situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)