From Cowboy Byte.com:

UN to propose planetary regulations of water, food

Posted on March 1, 2012 by Cowboy Byte

An environmental report issued by an agency of the United Nations last month has some critics sounding the alarm, saying it is a clarion call for “global governance” over how the Earth is managed.

The report, “21 Issues for the 21st Century,” from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil, in June

The scientists who wrote the report say it focuses on identifying emerging issues in the global environment, and that it is not about mandating solutions.

But its critics see an agenda lurking in its 60 pages, which call for a complete overhaul of how the world’s food and water are created and distributed — something the report says is “urgently needed” for the human race to keep feeding and hydrating itself safely.

Retribution and Overcriminalization

From The Heritage Foundation:

The Constitution/Civil Liberties

Retribution and Overcriminalization

by Gerard V. Bradley

The Heritage Foundation

March 01, 2012

From the ever-expanding number of federal criminal laws to prison sentences that are too numerous or too long, there are many promising bases for criticizing overcriminalization. One such basis, however, has yet to be fully considered: the fact that too many criminal offenses today are malum prohibitum offenses—that is, they criminalize conduct that is morally innocuous—and do not contain an adequate mens rea (criminal-intent) element. In order to limit the growth of laws criminalizing morally innocuous conduct—a development that, in turn, would curb overcriminalization—the United States legal community would be well-served to explore the concept of retribution and the manner in which it provides an account of how punishing those convicted of criminal offenses is morally justified. Punishment without a firm basis in retribution is unjust and therefore should be avoided.

URL: thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/pdf/lm77.pdf

The High Cost of Renewable-Electricity Mandates

From The Manhattan Institute:

Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science

The High Cost of Renewable-Electricity Mandates

by Robert Bryce

Manhattan Institute

March 01, 2012

Motivated by a desire to reduce carbon emissions, 29 states have required utility companies to deliver specified minimum amounts of electricity from “renewable” sources. Proponents of the renewable portfolio standards say that the mandated restrictions will reduce harmful emissions and spur job growth, by stimulating investment in green technologies. But this patchwork of state rules—which now affects the electricity bills of about two-thirds of the United States population as well as countless businesses and industrial users—has sprung up in recent years without the benefit of the states fully calculating their costs. There is growing evidence that the costs may be too high—that the price tag for purchasing renewable energy, and for building new transmission lines to deliver it, may not only outweigh any environmental benefits but may also be detrimental to the economy, costing jobs rather than adding them.

URL: www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/eper_10.pdf

From Personal Liberty Digest:

Nanny State To Mandate Rear-View Cameras In All Vehicles

March 1, 2012 by Sam Rolley 

The National Highway Safety Institute has set in place a law that will require that all vehicles come equipped with rear-view cameras, a measure that — if 100 percent effective — will prevent 228 American deaths each year at a cost of about $12 million each to American auto buyers.

According to The New York Times, in a preliminary version of the measure released for public comment, regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle. Some of the cost is expected to be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

Government statistics say that 228 people — 44 percent of whom are younger than 5 — die each year after being backed over by passenger vehicles. About 17,000 people a year are injured in such accidents.

Critics of the measure say that efforts to encourage Americans to pay more attention would be a much more effective way of avoiding tragedies without putting in place yet another auto-industry mandate to reduce the competitiveness of American autos.

Reason reports: “…Legislators put minimum effort into finding the most cost-efficient solution to this problem and failed to consider that car design isn’t really their job in the first place. Clearly, when considering the fact that most backover accidents involve the parent or relative of a child, the right course of action would be legislation that prohibits parents and relatives of children from driving in the first place.”

From the CATO Institute:

Sickening Regulation

by Michael D. Tanner

This article appeared in National Review (Online) on February 29, 2012.

 PRINT PAGE

 CITE THIS

     Sans Serif

     Serif

Never underestimate the brilliance of our federal bureaucracy.

The Department of Health and Human Services has announced that it must delay implementation of new reimbursement codes for Medicare. Those new regulations would have increased the total number of reimbursement codes from the current 18,000 to more than 140,000 separate codes. The delay will undoubtedly come as a relief for physicians who will have additional time to try to understand the bureaucratic complexity of rules that, for example, apply 36 different codes for treating a snake bite, depending on the type of snake, its geographical region, and whether the incident was accidental, intentional self-harm, assault, or undetermined. The new codes also thoroughly differentiate between nine different types of hang-gliding injuries, four different types of alligator attacks, and the important difference between injuries sustained by walking into a wall and those resulting from walking into a lamppost.

And Democrats wonder why Americans still resist having the government control our health care?

Less than a month before the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare, the American people have already reached their judgment. According to the latestUSA Today poll, fully 75 percent of Americans believe the new health-care law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. And if the Court doesn’t throw Obamacare out, Americans want Congress to do so: Half of voters want the law repealed, compared to 44 percent who want it retained. Moreover, those who want it repealed feel much more intensely about it. Fully 32 percent “strongly support” repeal, compared to just 18 percent who “strongly oppose” it. This is consistent with other polls — for example, the latest Rasmussen poll has 53 percent of likely voters supporting repeal, with just 38 percent opposed — and virtually unchanged since the law passed.

[F]ully 75 percent of Americans believe the new health-care law's individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Despite constant predictions by the media and the laws supporters, Obamacare is not becoming more popular.

The public seems to understand that government intervention does not generally make things less expensive. And there are good reasons for the public’s skepticism. For example, the Congressional Budget Office reported in December that at least six programs that were supposed to save money under Obamacare not only don’t, but some actually are increasing costs. And Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of both Obamacare and its precursor Romneycare, now says that premiums are likely to rise under the new health-care law. In fact, Gruber warns that, even after receiving government subsidies, some individuals will end up paying more than they would have without the reform. Gee, thanks, Mr. President.

And the public understands that imposing new taxes, mandates, and regulations will do nothing to create jobs in a struggling economy. In fact, a poll released last month by the Chamber of Commerce showed that for 74 percent of small businesses they’re “causing an impediment to job creation.”

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

More by Michael D. Tanner

At the same time, the controversy over the administration’s contraception mandate has brought home to voters just how coercive the health-care law really is.

Most of all, Americans understand that, from the beginning, the debate over health-care reform has been about control. The Obama administration believes that decisions about health care are simply too important and too complex for the average American and his doctor to make for themselves. Only the experts in Washington can get those decisions right. After all, only Washington can understand the difference between a burn from a hot toaster (Code No. X15.1) and a burn from an electronic-game keyboard (Code No. Y93.C1).

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the American people just don’t believe them.

from The CATO Institute:

New from Washington: Disabled-employee Quotas for Federal Contractors

The Obama administration is preparing to order federal contractors to meet a quota of disabled employees. To make matters worse, employers are supposed to achieve this quota without asking potential employees whether or not they’re disabled. Cato scholar Walter Olson comments in a new op-ed for the Daily Caller:

Here come the quotas, in vastly more onerous form than the old preferences, of course….Trouble is, it's illegal under the ADA for employers to ask job applicants whether they're disabled, even if the question is offered with favorable intent. So the rules contemplate a fan dance of "invited self-identification" in which workers are given repeated chances at successive stages of the hiring process to announce that they are disabled. Unfortunately for quota compliance, even after getting the job an employee may be too shy to offer such a self-identification, which means the employer may lose any "credit" for the hire. Perhaps equally frustrating, an employee hired with the quota in mind may turn out not to have any disability at all.

Olson is author of Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America.

From The Heritage Foundation:

Red Tape and the Onerous Effects of Overregulation

Ed Feulner

February 22, 2012 at 11:30 am

(0)

We keep hearing that the economy is in a “jobless recovery.” What’s holding American companies back? Why aren’t they hiring more people?

High taxes draw a lot of attention, and rightly so. They depress investment and discourage innovation. But escalating regulatory costs also undermine our economy. And small businesses, which fuel so much economic growth and hire so many people, often wind up particularly hard-hit by them.

You don’t have to be a doctrinaire conservative to realize this. The Economist, the London-based news weekly – and a supporter of President Obama’s candidacy in 2008 – highlights the problem in its latest cover story, “Overregulated America.” They note the irony: “The home of laissez-faire is being suffocated by excessive and badly written regulation.”

Mr. Obama also has emphasized the problem. The “rules have gotten out of balance,” he said in a speech last year, resulting in “a chilling effect on growth and jobs.” When the National Federation of Independent Businesses asked small-business owners in December to name their single biggest problem, 19 percent cited regulations and red tape – up from 15 percent a year ago. That’s more than any other category except for “poor sales.”

The sheer number of regulations alone is staggering. Consider the size of the Federal Register, the daily official chronicle of regulatory changes. Before a new rule can take effect, it must be published in the Register. In 2009, it was 68,598 pages long. In 2010, it ballooned to 81,405. In 2011, the Register hit 82,415, a new record. The president’s reassurances to the contrary, the number keeps going up.

Regulations add $10,585 in costs per employee, according to a study for the Small Business Administration. With a price tag like that, it’s no wonder hiring has taken a hit in the midst of a fragile recovery.

Beyond the number and the total cost are the regulations themselves. Many are ludicrously nitpicky and easy to lampoon. “There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming waterskis,” the Economist writes. The Heritage Foundation keeps a running tab of such rules on its “Tales of the Red Tape” weekly blog posts.

But while it’s entertaining to ridicule them – and it’s certainly well-deserved – we shouldn’t overlook the bigger rules. Take these three major new regulations from 2011:

1) March 21: New emissions standards are adopted for hundreds of thousands of commercial, institutional and industrial boilers. The price tag, according to a study by the economic forecasting firm IHS Global Insight: $20 billion. The rules would cause “significant new regulatory costs” for businesses, institutions and municipalities nationwide, the Small Business Administration warned. A Commerce Department analysis found they would result in 40,000 to 60,000 lost jobs.

2) Aug. 8: A new rule forces 27 Eastern, Midwestern, and Southern states to achieve more stringent emissions reductions from power plants. Texas and 26 other states have challenged it, calling it a threat to the reliability of the electrical supply. Annual cost: $846.33 million. Don’t expect this one to reduce unemployment, either.

3) Sept. 15: New fuel efficiency and, yes, emissions standards go into effect for combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles (like transit buses and refuse trucks). The rule is expected to drive up prices for trucks by up to $6,000. And who does the added burden fall most heavily on? Small, independent owner-operators of trucks. Annual cost: $606.9 million.

Many of these regulations, not surprisingly, are created not by politicians but by bureaucrats who are unaccountable to voters. This points to one obvious solution: We need to require congressional approval of major new rules. A new congressional office to analyze proposed regulations and their likely effect would also help, as well as a “sunset,” or expiration date. That would help clear outdated rules off the books.

The stakes are high. “Regulation may crush the life out of America’s economy,” the Economist concludes. Is Congress going to stand by and let that happen?

Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation.

Cross-posted from The Washington Times.

Posted in Enterprise and Free Markets