Jump to content
king of the county

Tlaib: Economy Is Better Because People Are 'Demanding It,' Not Trump

Recommended Posts

Just now, king of the county said:

Yea on my a$$

id have to choke a bitch for that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, king of the county said:

All in good fun 

erotic asphyxiation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to believe that the President controls the economy, one has to believe that the Consumption element of GDP is at the sole behest of the President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 5:16 AM, king of the county said:

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) said the strong economy was not because of President Donald Trump, but instead it is because people are demanding it though protest movements.

Liberals can't understand economics.   Wages are going up because we have the highest employment numbers in history, combined with lowest unemployment, combined with 7 million jobs waiting to be filled. 

That means anyone that wants a job, can get one, and anyone who wants more money can change jobs to get it. 

That means employers have to pay more. 

 

THAT is how the market works, boys and girls. 

Not because some moronic liberal demands higher wages for doing nothing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

to believe that the President controls the economy, one has to believe that the Consumption element of GDP is at the sole behest of the President. 

No one believes the "President controls the economy" but there is MUCH he can do to influence the economy. 

Do you not agree that regulations and taxes hurt the economy by causing businesses to waste money and time complying with those laws and regs?

 

If you agree with that, than President Obama' hurt the economy by imposing so many regulations.

And President Trump helped the economy by eliminating so many of those same regulations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2019 at 7:52 PM, Golfboy said:

No one believes the "President controls the economy" but there is MUCH he can do to influence the economy. 

Do you not agree that regulations and taxes hurt the economy by causing businesses to waste money and time complying with those laws and regs?

 

If you agree with that, than President Obama' hurt the economy by imposing so many regulations.

And President Trump helped the economy by eliminating so many of those same regulations. 

So that we do not descend into a debate that is essentially about nothing. 1. would you agree that  there are degrees of impact... so it is not binary (only two choices or possibilities)? 2. Can you quantify the impact of enacting or removing these regulations? Hint... quantify means exact numbers and not adjectives like good, bad, hurtful, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So that we do not descend into a debate that is essentially about nothing. 1. would you agree that  there are degrees of impact... so it is not binary (only two choices or possibilities)? 2. Can you quantify the impact of enacting or removing these regulations? Hint... quantify means exact numbers and not adjectives like good, bad, hurtful, etc. 

83 Environmental
Rules Being Rolled
Back Under Trump

By NADJA POPOVICHLIVIA ALBECK-RIPKA and KENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS UPDATED June 7, 2019

President Trump has made eliminating federal regulations a priority. His administration, with help from Republicans in Congress, has often targeted environmental rules it sees as burdensome to the fossil fuel industry and other big businesses.

A New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law SchoolColumbia Law School and other sources, counts more than 80 environmental rules and regulations on the way out under Mr. Trump.

Our list represents two types of policy changes: rules that were officially reversed and rollbacks still in progress. The Trump administration has released an aggressive schedule to try to finalize many of these rollbacks this year.

49
34
83
ROLLBACKS COMPLETED
ROLLBACKS IN PROCESS
TOTAL ROLLBACKS
 
Air pollution and emissions
10 overturned
12 in process
22 total
 
Drilling and extraction
overturned
in process
18 total
 
Infrastructure and planning
12 overturned
in process
13 total
 
Animals
overturned
in process
10 total
 
Toxic substances and safety
overturned
in process
total
 
Water pollution
overturned
in process
total
 
Other
overturned
in process
total

The Trump administration has often used a “one-two punch” when rolling back environmental rules, said Caitlin McCoy, a fellow in the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School who tracks regulatory rollbacks. “First a delay rule to buy some time, and then a final substantive rule.”

But the process of rolling back regulations has not always been smooth. In some cases, the administration has failed to provide a strong legal argument in favor of proposed changes or agencies have skipped key steps in the rulemaking process, like notifying the public and asking for comment. In several cases, courts have ordered agencies to enforce their own rules.

Several environmental rules — summarized at the bottom of this page — were rolled back and then later reinstated, often following legal challenges. Other rollbacks remain mired in court.

 

All told, the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions and lead to thousands of extra deaths from poor air quality every year, according to a recent report prepared by New York University Law School's State Energy and Environmental Impact Center.

Here are the details for each of the policies targeted by the administration so far. Are there rollbacks we missed? Email climateteam@nytimes.com or tweet @nytclimate.

 

 

Air pollution and emissions

COMPLETED

1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency | Read more
2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department | Read more
3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. | Read more
4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. | Read more
5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department | Read more
6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. | Read more
7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollutionin surrounding communities. E.P.A. | Read more
8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon”that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order | Read more
9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality | Read more
10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. | Read more

IN PROCESS

11. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department | Read more
12. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order | Read more
13. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more
14. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. | Read more
15. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. | Read more
16. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more
17. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. | Read more
18. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. | Read more
19. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. | Read more
20. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. | Read more
21. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. | Read more
22. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A. | Read more
 

Drilling and extraction

COMPLETED

23. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department | Read more
24. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian landsInterior Department | Read more
25. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean upfuture pollution. E.P.A. | Read more
26. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing. Interior Department | Read more
27. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. Executive Order; Army | Read more
28. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order | Read more
29. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | Read more
30. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Read more
31. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department | Read more

IN PROCESS

32. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department | Read more
33. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful. Interior Department | Read more
34. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more
35. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing  royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department | Read more
36. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department | Read more
37. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more
38. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Read more
39. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more
40. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department | Read more
 

Infrastructure and planning

COMPLETED

41. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order | Read more
42. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order | Read more
43. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resourceswhen approving development projects. Executive Order | Read more
44. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order | Read more
45. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order | Read more
46. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process. Congress | Read more
47. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks. National Park Service | Read more
48. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department | Read more
49. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department | Read more
50. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department | Read more
51. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projectswith the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks. Federal Communications Commission | Read more
52. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects. Interior Department | Read more

IN PROCESS

53. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department | Read more
 

Animals

COMPLETED

54. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance. Interior Department | Read more
55. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department | Read more
56. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress | Read more
57. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears. National Park Service; Interior Department | Read more
58. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Read more
59. Amended fishing regulationsfor a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Read more
60. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department | Read more
61. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives. Interior Department | Read more

IN PROCESS

62. Proposed stripping the Endangered Species Act of key provisions. Interior Department | Read more
63. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more
 

Toxic substances and safety

COMPLETED

64. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination. E.P.A. | Read more
65. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trainshauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department | Read more
66. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. | Read more

IN PROCESS

67. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a potentially neurotoxic pesticide. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to ban the pesticide, but the agency is appealing the ruling. E.P.A. | Read more
68. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing. Labor Department | Read more
 

Water pollution

COMPLETED

69. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress | Read more
70. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. | Read more
71. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring  groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. E.P.A. | Read more
72. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.) E.P.A. | Read more

IN PROCESS

73. Proposed rolling back protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that the Obama administration wanted covered by the Clean Water Act. E.P.A.; Army | Read more
74. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. | Read more
75. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more
 

Other

COMPLETED

76. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department | Read more
77. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order | Read more
78. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department | Read more

IN PROCESS

79. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemakingto only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. | Read more
80. Proposed repealing an Obama-era regulation that nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards set to go into effect next year. Energy Department | Read more
81. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. | Read more
82. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heatersdesigned to reduce energy use. Energy Department | Read more
83. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department | Read more

 

10 rules were reinstated,
often following lawsuits
and other challenges

1. Reinstated a rule aimed at improving safety at facilities that use hazardous chemicalsfollowing a federal court order. E.P.A. | Read more
2. Reversed course on repealing emissions standards for “glider” trucks — vehicles retrofitted with older, often dirtier engines — after Andrew Wheeler took over as head of the E.P.A. E.P.A. | Read more
3. Delayed a compliance deadline for new national ozone pollution standards by one year, but later reversed course. E.P.A. | Read more
4. Suspended an effort to lift restrictions on mining in Bristol Bay, Alaska. But the Army Corps of Engineers is performing an environmental review of an application for mining in the area. E.P.A.; Army | Read more
5. Delayed implementation of a rule regulating the certification and training of pesticide applicators, but a judge ruled that the E.P.A. had done so illegally and declared the rule in effect. E.P.A. | Read more
6. Initially delayed publishing efficiency standards for household appliances, but later published them after multiple states and environmental groups sued. Energy Department | Read more
7. Delayed federal building efficiency standards until Sept. 30, 2017, at which time the rules went into effect. Energy Department | Read more
8. Reissued a rule limiting the discharge of mercury by dental offices into municipal sewers after a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. E.P.A. | Read more
9. Re-posted a proposed rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, after initially changing its status to “inactive” on the E.P.A. website. In May 2019, the agency confimed it would issue the rule. E.P.A. | Read more
10. Removed the Yellowstone grizzly bear from the Endangered Species List, but the protections were later reinstated by a federal judge. (The Trump administration appealed the ruling in May 2019.) Interior Department | Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, king of the county said:

83 Environmental
Rules Being Rolled
Back Under Trump

By NADJA POPOVICHLIVIA ALBECK-RIPKA and KENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS UPDATED June 7, 2019

President Trump has made eliminating federal regulations a priority. His administration, with help from Republicans in Congress, has often targeted environmental rules it sees as burdensome to the fossil fuel industry and other big businesses.

A New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law SchoolColumbia Law School and other sources, counts more than 80 environmental rules and regulations on the way out under Mr. Trump.

Our list represents two types of policy changes: rules that were officially reversed and rollbacks still in progress. The Trump administration has released an aggressive schedule to try to finalize many of these rollbacks this year.

49
34
83
ROLLBACKS COMPLETED
ROLLBACKS IN PROCESS
TOTAL ROLLBACKS
 
Air pollution and emissions
10 overturned
12 in process
22 total
 
Drilling and extraction
overturned
in process
18 total
 
Infrastructure and planning
12 overturned
in process
13 total
 
Animals
overturned
in process
10 total
 
Toxic substances and safety
overturned
in process
total
 
Water pollution
overturned
in process
total
 
Other
overturned
in process
total

The Trump administration has often used a “one-two punch” when rolling back environmental rules, said Caitlin McCoy, a fellow in the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School who tracks regulatory rollbacks. “First a delay rule to buy some time, and then a final substantive rule.”

But the process of rolling back regulations has not always been smooth. In some cases, the administration has failed to provide a strong legal argument in favor of proposed changes or agencies have skipped key steps in the rulemaking process, like notifying the public and asking for comment. In several cases, courts have ordered agencies to enforce their own rules.

Several environmental rules — summarized at the bottom of this page — were rolled back and then later reinstated, often following legal challenges. Other rollbacks remain mired in court.

 

All told, the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions and lead to thousands of extra deaths from poor air quality every year, according to a recent report prepared by New York University Law School's State Energy and Environmental Impact Center.

Here are the details for each of the policies targeted by the administration so far. Are there rollbacks we missed? Email climateteam@nytimes.com or tweet @nytclimate.

 

 

Air pollution and emissions

COMPLETED

1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency | Read more
2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department | Read more
3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. | Read more
4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. | Read more
5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department | Read more
6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. | Read more
7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollutionin surrounding communities. E.P.A. | Read more
8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon”that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order | Read more
9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality | Read more
10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. | Read more

IN PROCESS

11. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department | Read more
12. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order | Read more
13. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more
14. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. | Read more
15. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. | Read more
16. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more
17. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. | Read more
18. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. | Read more
19. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. | Read more
20. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. | Read more
21. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. | Read more
22. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A. | Read more
 

Drilling and extraction

COMPLETED

23. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department | Read more
24. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian landsInterior Department | Read more
25. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean upfuture pollution. E.P.A. | Read more
26. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing. Interior Department | Read more
27. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. Executive Order; Army | Read more
28. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order | Read more
29. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | Read more
30. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Read more
31. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department | Read more

IN PROCESS

32. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department | Read more
33. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful. Interior Department | Read more
34. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more
35. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing  royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department | Read more
36. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department | Read more
37. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more
38. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Read more
39. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more
40. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department | Read more
 

Infrastructure and planning

COMPLETED

41. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order | Read more
42. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order | Read more
43. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resourceswhen approving development projects. Executive Order | Read more
44. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order | Read more
45. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order | Read more
46. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process. Congress | Read more
47. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks. National Park Service | Read more
48. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department | Read more
49. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department | Read more
50. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department | Read more
51. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projectswith the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks. Federal Communications Commission | Read more
52. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects. Interior Department | Read more

IN PROCESS

53. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department | Read more
 

Animals

COMPLETED

54. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance. Interior Department | Read more
55. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department | Read more
56. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress | Read more
57. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears. National Park Service; Interior Department | Read more
58. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Read more
59. Amended fishing regulationsfor a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Read more
60. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department | Read more
61. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives. Interior Department | Read more

IN PROCESS

62. Proposed stripping the Endangered Species Act of key provisions. Interior Department | Read more
63. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more
 

Toxic substances and safety

COMPLETED

64. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination. E.P.A. | Read more
65. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trainshauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department | Read more
66. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. | Read more

IN PROCESS

67. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a potentially neurotoxic pesticide. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to ban the pesticide, but the agency is appealing the ruling. E.P.A. | Read more
68. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing. Labor Department | Read more
 

Water pollution

COMPLETED

69. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress | Read more
70. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. | Read more
71. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring  groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. E.P.A. | Read more
72. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.) E.P.A. | Read more

IN PROCESS

73. Proposed rolling back protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that the Obama administration wanted covered by the Clean Water Act. E.P.A.; Army | Read more
74. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. | Read more
75. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more
 

Other

COMPLETED

76. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department | Read more
77. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order | Read more
78. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department | Read more

IN PROCESS

79. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemakingto only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. | Read more
80. Proposed repealing an Obama-era regulation that nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards set to go into effect next year. Energy Department | Read more
81. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. | Read more
82. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heatersdesigned to reduce energy use. Energy Department | Read more
83. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department | Read more

 

10 rules were reinstated,
often following lawsuits
and other challenges

1. Reinstated a rule aimed at improving safety at facilities that use hazardous chemicalsfollowing a federal court order. E.P.A. | Read more
2. Reversed course on repealing emissions standards for “glider” trucks — vehicles retrofitted with older, often dirtier engines — after Andrew Wheeler took over as head of the E.P.A. E.P.A. | Read more
3. Delayed a compliance deadline for new national ozone pollution standards by one year, but later reversed course. E.P.A. | Read more
4. Suspended an effort to lift restrictions on mining in Bristol Bay, Alaska. But the Army Corps of Engineers is performing an environmental review of an application for mining in the area. E.P.A.; Army | Read more
5. Delayed implementation of a rule regulating the certification and training of pesticide applicators, but a judge ruled that the E.P.A. had done so illegally and declared the rule in effect. E.P.A. | Read more
6. Initially delayed publishing efficiency standards for household appliances, but later published them after multiple states and environmental groups sued. Energy Department | Read more
7. Delayed federal building efficiency standards until Sept. 30, 2017, at which time the rules went into effect. Energy Department | Read more
8. Reissued a rule limiting the discharge of mercury by dental offices into municipal sewers after a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. E.P.A. | Read more
9. Re-posted a proposed rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, after initially changing its status to “inactive” on the E.P.A. website. In May 2019, the agency confimed it would issue the rule. E.P.A. | Read more
10. Removed the Yellowstone grizzly bear from the Endangered Species List, but the protections were later reinstated by a federal judge. (The Trump administration appealed the ruling in May 2019.) Interior Department | Read more

A long winded way of saying nothing. Good job.. Do you want a lollipop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, impartialobserver said:

A long winded way of saying nothing. Good job.. Do you want a lollipop?

I thought that’s what you axed for am i wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, king of the county said:

I thought that’s what you axed for am i wrong?

I do not have the time to explain what quantifying the economic impact something is? Existence of something is not enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

I do not have the time to explain what quantifying the economic impact something is? Existence of something is not enough. 

I’ll check it out 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So that we do not descend into a debate that is essentially about nothing. 1. would you agree that  there are degrees of impact... so it is not binary (only two choices or possibilities)? 2. Can you quantify the impact of enacting or removing these regulations? Hint... quantify means exact numbers and not adjectives like good, bad, hurtful, etc. 

Assessing the Economic Impact of Deregulation

 
 

 

 
One of the most controversial issues in public policy relates to the role of government regulation of the economy.
Nick Sargen August 8, 2018
SHARE:
 

Assessing the economic impact

  • The top economic goal of the Trump administration is to boost the U.S. economy through changes in the tax code and diminished regulations. While economic growth has accelerated, the importance of regulatory changes often is downplayed by economists because it is difficult to quantify the overall impact.
  • Survey results for businesses — especially smaller firms — suggest regulatory changes are having some impact nonetheless: As shown in Figure 1 below, there is a link between the way small businesses view regulations and improvements in manufacturing sentiment.1 This is consistent with research that shows the impact of government regulations is greatest on small size firms.
  • The environment is an extensive area of regulations to deal with externalities such as pollution. However, several studies suggest environmental regulations have become overly complex, and market-based solutions offer a more effective means for dealing with the problem of acid rain. Although several former Republican policymakers have proposed a carbon tax to combat global warming, President Trump believes the costs are too great for the economy.
  • Another important area is financial services, where the principal challenge is to ensure stability without turning banks into quasi-utilities. It is too early to ascertain the impact of policy changes to lessen the impact of Dodd-Frank, but financial stocks have matched the overall stock market for the first time in several years after trailing the broad market consistently since 2008.

Small Business Views on Regulation and ISM Manufacturing Sentiment chart

Background: The Case for Deregulation

One of the most controversial issues in public policy relates to the role of government regulation of the economy. This is an area in which many businesses have expressed frustrations over the past two decades. In a speech to the Economic Club of New York shortly before the November 2016 elections, Donald Trump mentioned that he frequently asks CEOs what they would pick if forced to choose between tax cuts or diminished regulations. According to him, nine out of ten executives would opt to have fewer regulations. The reason: companies can hire tax experts to navigate their way around the tax code, but it is more difficult to circumvent regulations.

The regulatory burden is especially problematic for small businesses because the rules cause them to incur fixed costs, and the scale of operations is much smaller than for larger firms. For example, a study by Nicole Crain and Mark Crain of Lafayette College estimates the cost per employee of complying with federal regulations at $10.6 thousand for businesses with fewer than 20 employees compared with $7.8 thousand for those with more than 500 workers.2 The researchers also contend that government regulations make small business less competitive against foreign firms.

Nor does the United States fare well when compared with many industrialized nations.  A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) undertaken a decade ago found the U.S. barriers had higher regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship, greater administrative burdens on small business owners, and higher barriers to competition than a number of other industrialized countries. An article in The Economist titled “Over-regulated America” (February 18, 2012) made the following observation:

 

Americans love to laugh at ridiculous regulations…But the red tape in America is no laughing matter…Americans are supposed to be free to choose for better or worse. Yet for some time Americans have been straying from the ideal.

How Costly Are Regulations?

This begs the question about how costly regulations are for the economy as a whole. The problem is no one really knows.The federal government is not required to track regulatory costs, and most empirical studies have focused on a narrow set of industries. Federal agencies are only required to conduct cost-benefit analyses on rules deemed “economically significant,” which are defined as having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million. The Congressional Research Service, therefore, has warned that it is inherently difficult to estimate the total cost of regulations and that estimates “should be used with a great deal of caution”.3

What is clear is the Trump administration is serious about reducing regulatory burdens businesses face. It has done so by instituting a freeze that has slowed the number of new regulations considerably and by reinterpreting existing statutes to be more favorable to business than during the Obama administration. The Trump administration, in turn, has touted its pro-business stance as having contributed to the acceleration in economic growth over the past year to a 3% annual rate from 2% previously.

Most economic analyses have credited the changes in tax legislation that were enacted at the end of 2017 rather than deregulation for this outcome. The consensus view, for example, is the stimulus from corporate and personal tax cuts were front-end loaded and will add the equivalent of 1% to 1.3% of GDP this year. By comparison, the impact on the economy over the long-term is estimated to be 0.1%-0.2% per annum, compared with 0.5% by the Trump administration.

An alternative view is that of Mickey Levey, chief economist for Berenberg Capital Markets, who contends the easing of burdensome regulations has been a key factor driving U.S. business confidence, production, and capital spending:  “While the deregulatory thrust has received far less attention than 2017’s tax reform deliberations or 2018’s skirmishes on trade policy, it is of utmost importance to business production processes and decisions about hiring, expansion plans, and investment strategy.” As evidence, Levy cites the latest survey by National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which shows that many small businesses have expressed reduced concerns about government requirements, and Levy links this to improved manufacturing sentiment in the ISM survey. 

Levy’s forecast for the U.S. economy over the long-term is upbeat: He believes the improved climate for business investment spending will help lift the potential growth rate of the economy from the Fed’s estimate of 1.8% per annum to at least 2% soon. In this regard, Levy contends that a “growing web of regulations imposed at the national, state and local level” after the 2008-09 financial crisis created policy-induced “supply constraints” that offset the Fed’s unprecedented monetary stimulus.4

At this juncture, it is too early to tell which view is correct. However, insofar as improved business sentiment translates into increased business capital spending, there is some corroboration for the view that burdensome regulations impeded economic growth after the financial crisis.

Impact of Environmental Regulations

Because of difficulty quantifying the impact of regulations on the overall economy, I have taken a closer look at two areas — the environment and financial services — where government regulation is especially important.

With respect to the environment, the signature piece of legislation was the Clean Air Act that was enacted in 1970, which authorized the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations from both industrial sources and automobiles. It was followed by amendments to cover geographic areas that do not meet one or more of the federal quality standards in 1977 and legislation enacted in the early 1990s to deal with the problem of acid rain. Considerable progress has been achieved in battling air and water pollution, which has improved human health and the environment.

Nonetheless, a prevalent view today is environmental policy is extremely complex, has led to ungainly bureaucracies, has incurred high costs, is politically polarized and is also very litigious.5 A report by the Brookings Institution on the 30th anniversary of the creation of the EPA, for example, acknowledged that U.S. companies were complaining about the high cost of compliance, and it cited two studies that estimated the annual cost in the late 1990s to range between $144 billion to $185 billion.6 Businesses have also complained the rules have outlived their usefulness, have resulted in job losses, and make American companies less competitive internationally.7

What would better statutes entail? The consensus among experts is policymakers should seek market-oriented solutions to environmental problems.  One application is the way Congress dealt with the problem of acid rain with an approach that became known as “cap and trade” because the government sets caps on the total amount of allowances and permits them to be traded between companies that emit sulfur dioxide. Economists favor this approach because it means that the reduction in emissions takes place at plants that can accomplish the goal most cheaply, which is consistent with efficient resource allocation. Also, because allowances command a positive price, firms are incented to reduce their emissions and profit by selling allowances.

By comparison, solutions to global warming have proven to be more difficult to implement in the United States. The main problem in dealing with global warming is that it arises from burning fossil fuels, which is basic to the economy and jobs. To burn less requires either constricting the economy, making it more energy efficient, or providing alternative sources of energy. A proposal to tax carbon emissions has been put forth by a group of former government officials — James A. Baker III, George P. Shultz, and Henry M. Paulson — who contend it is a “conservative climate solution” that is based on free-market principles.8 The proposal would substitute the carbon tax for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a complex set of regulations that President Trump has pledged to repeal and which is tied up in many court challenges. However, the Trump administration has failed to endorse the carbon tax plan, because it believes it is too costly.

Financial Regulation: Finding the Right Balance

The considerations entailed in the regulation of the financial sector belie its importance to the overall economy and household savings. The history of the nineteenth century is replete with numerous U.S. banking crises that resulted in people rushing to withdraw deposits before banks collapsed, and the worst experience was the 1930s when more than 5,000 banks failed. It resulted in Glass-Steagall legislation, which prohibited commercial banks from participating in the investment banking activities. Glass Steagall is generally credited as contributing to financial stability during the post-war period when banking crises were few and far between. Nonetheless, several factors coalesced to bring about its repeal as financial markets were liberalized around the world beginning in the 1980s and continuing into the late 2000s.

The case for increased regulation undertaken by the Obama administration was that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was a consequence of market failure. This view was the majority opinion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) that was formed to investigate the causes of the crisis and to make recommendations to enhance the safety and soundness of the financial system. The origins of the crisis were attributed to a bubble in housing and a breakdown in the process of securitizing mortgages: “It was the collapse of the housing bubble –fueled by low-interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages — that was the spark.”9 The severity of the crisis, in turn, was attributed to failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions.

For some observers, the FCIC’s findings are moot, because Congress already had passed the Dodd-Frank Act six months before the report was released. At first blush, many of the goals of Dodd-Frank seem laudatory: providing better consumer protection from abusive financial practices, ending bank bailouts, creating an early warning system, and improving transparency and accounting for exotic instruments.  However, many observers are skeptical that Dodd-Frank can produce the desired results. Among the principal criticisms are the following:

  • The bill is too complex. It contains 849 pages of legislation and several thousand pages in subsequent rule-making documentation.
  • It has proved to be very costly with uncertain benefits. A study by the American Action Forum concluded that at the end of its sixth anniversary Dodd-Frank had imposed more than $36 billion in cost on the financial services industry and 73 million hours of paperwork.10
  • It imposes significant new restrictions on activities of many banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions that had little to do with the crisis.  As a result, it could result in regulatory overkill.
  • It is unlikely to protect against the next financial crisis. One of the key objectives of Dodd-Frank, for example, is to mitigate the risk of “Too Big to Fail.” However, Charles Calomiris of the Columbia Business School contends the provision to provide for the orderly liquidation of insolvent institutions is unworkable, and that the path of least resistance remains bailouts.11 Furthermore, the banking industry has become even more concentrated since the GFC, with the top five U.S. banks today accounting for nearly one-half of all deposits, as compared with 30% before the crisis. 

What can be done to address these issues? Views on this matter are diverse depending on the perspective about the factors contributing to the financial crisis and possible remedies. The approach the U.S. Treasury has advocated would redress what it sees as a problem Dodd-Frank has created: Namely, it contends Dodd-Frank has discouraged banks from extending credit to small businesses and that it has created “an excess of capital.”

In reviewing these issues, however, some observers have challenged Treasury’s claim that regulations have resulted in slower growth of credit.12  While it is often asserted that banks have been constrained from making loans to small businesses due to restrictions, the Fed’s quarterly survey of senior loan officers does not point to an unusual pattern of credit tightening since Dodd-Frank was enacted. 

The biggest changes under consideration by the Treasury would alleviate capital and liquidity requirements for the largest banks. According to the U.S. Treasury, there is now an “excess of capital” that constrains the supply of bank credit, and it calls for a “recalibration” in cases where regulators have set requirements on the largest U.S. banks that are in excess of international standards. Yet the institutions that became troubled during the GFC were ones that sought to boost overall profitability via excessive financial leverage and which funded the purchase of illiquid instruments with short-term borrowings. The trigger for disaster was the value of their assets plummeted when the housing bubble burst and the impact were magnified by the need to de-lever their balance sheets quickly at fire-sale prices.

The bottom line is that while there is a strong case for lessening the regulatory burden of Dodd-Frank, there is also a risk the pendulum could swing back too far in the direction of lessening capital and liquidity requirements, which would leave the financial system exposed to unforeseen risks.

Implications for Financial Markets

The Trump administration’s efforts to deregulate the economy is often cited as a factor that has buoyed the stock market. However, it is difficult to quantify the overall market impact for the same reason that it is hard to quantify the impact on the overall economy.

What is evident is the GFC and its aftermath proved to be a toxic environment for bank stocks and other financials. As a group, the financial sector materially underperformed the broad market from the onset of the crisis in 2008 until the November 2016 election (Figure 2). This reflected a combination of forces including the profitability of financial institutions being crushed by losses on holdings of securities and loans, record low-interest rates and narrow credit spreads, and increased regulatory burdens imposed by Dodd-Frank. In fact, many investors concluded that the aim of the regulations was effectively to make financial institutions behave more like regulated utilities, and financial stocks trailed the broad market.

In the aftermath of the 2016 election, financial stocks surged initially through the end of 2016 and then performed in line with the broad market during 2017 for the first time in nearly a decade. This partly was due to the perception that the Trump administration would seek to roll back Dodd-Frank, while also lessening regulatory oversight of financial institutions.  In addition, financial stocks benefitted from expectations that stronger growth would enable the Federal Reserve to begin normalizing interest rates. Although financials underperformed in the second quarter of 2017, as investors perceived the Fed would slow the pace of policy tightening, the sector still finished the year 19% higher, which was in line with the broad index.  Looking ahead, it is generally agreed the performance of financial stocks is closely tied to the performance of the economy and to the path of interest rates.

Figue 2 Prformance  of Financial Sector Relative to S&P 500 from 2008 to July 2018 followed by Figure 3 Relative Returns November 1 2016 to July 27, 2018


This commentary is a distillation of a chapter in Nick Sargen’s “Investing in the Trump Era: How Economic Policies Impact Financial Markets” published by Palgrave MacMillan in July 2018.

See Mickey Levy commentary for Berenberg Capital Markets, “Chart of the week – U.S. deregulation drives momentum in business and economy,” June 29, 2018.
2 “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms,” SBA, September 2010.
See The Congressional Research Service, March 27, 2017.
4 See Mickey Levy op. cit.
5 See Donald F. Kettl, “Environmental Policy: The Next Generation,” The Brookings Institution, October 1, 1998.
6 Ibid.
The problems, to a large extent, stem from the Clean Air Act being one of the first in a series of statutes that gave citizens the right to regulatory protection, to command agencies to do what is necessary to protect those rights, and to direct courts to enforce the demands.  During the 1970s, consumers and environmental groups also began to receive “intervention” or “public participation” funding to cover their costs for advocating before federal agencies in the public interest.
8 John Schwartz, “A Conservative Climate Solution: Republican Group Calls for Carbon Tax”, The New York Times, February 7, 2017.
9 The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, submitted by The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, January 2011, Official Government edition.
10 Sam Batkins, Dan Goldbeck, “Six Years After Dodd-Frank: Higher Costs, Uncertain Benefits,” American Action Forum, July 20, 2016.
11 Charles W. Calomiris, “Four Principles for Replacing Dodd-Frank,” The Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2017.
12 See Kim Schoenholtz, Money, Banking and Financial Markets, “The Treasury’s Missed Opportunity,” June 19, 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, king of the county said:

Assessing the Economic Impact of Deregulation

 
 

 

 
One of the most controversial issues in public policy relates to the role of government regulation of the economy.
Nick Sargen August 8, 2018
SHARE:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 

Assessing the economic impact

  • The top economic goal of the Trump administration is to boost the U.S. economy through changes in the tax code and diminished regulations. While economic growth has accelerated, the importance of regulatory changes often is downplayed by economists because it is difficult to quantify the overall impact.
  • Survey results for businesses — especially smaller firms — suggest regulatory changes are having some impact nonetheless: As shown in Figure 1 below, there is a link between the way small businesses view regulations and improvements in manufacturing sentiment.1 This is consistent with research that shows the impact of government regulations is greatest on small size firms.
  • The environment is an extensive area of regulations to deal with externalities such as pollution. However, several studies suggest environmental regulations have become overly complex, and market-based solutions offer a more effective means for dealing with the problem of acid rain. Although several former Republican policymakers have proposed a carbon tax to combat global warming, President Trump believes the costs are too great for the economy.
  • Another important area is financial services, where the principal challenge is to ensure stability without turning banks into quasi-utilities. It is too early to ascertain the impact of policy changes to lessen the impact of Dodd-Frank, but financial stocks have matched the overall stock market for the first time in several years after trailing the broad market consistently since 2008.

Small Business Views on Regulation and ISM Manufacturing Sentiment chart

Background: The Case for Deregulation

One of the most controversial issues in public policy relates to the role of government regulation of the economy. This is an area in which many businesses have expressed frustrations over the past two decades. In a speech to the Economic Club of New York shortly before the November 2016 elections, Donald Trump mentioned that he frequently asks CEOs what they would pick if forced to choose between tax cuts or diminished regulations. According to him, nine out of ten executives would opt to have fewer regulations. The reason: companies can hire tax experts to navigate their way around the tax code, but it is more difficult to circumvent regulations.

The regulatory burden is especially problematic for small businesses because the rules cause them to incur fixed costs, and the scale of operations is much smaller than for larger firms. For example, a study by Nicole Crain and Mark Crain of Lafayette College estimates the cost per employee of complying with federal regulations at $10.6 thousand for businesses with fewer than 20 employees compared with $7.8 thousand for those with more than 500 workers.2 The researchers also contend that government regulations make small business less competitive against foreign firms.

Nor does the United States fare well when compared with many industrialized nations.  A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) undertaken a decade ago found the U.S. barriers had higher regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship, greater administrative burdens on small business owners, and higher barriers to competition than a number of other industrialized countries. An article in The Economist titled “Over-regulated America” (February 18, 2012) made the following observation:

 

Americans love to laugh at ridiculous regulations…But the red tape in America is no laughing matter…Americans are supposed to be free to choose for better or worse. Yet for some time Americans have been straying from the ideal.

How Costly Are Regulations?

This begs the question about how costly regulations are for the economy as a whole. The problem is no one really knows.The federal government is not required to track regulatory costs, and most empirical studies have focused on a narrow set of industries. Federal agencies are only required to conduct cost-benefit analyses on rules deemed “economically significant,” which are defined as having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million. The Congressional Research Service, therefore, has warned that it is inherently difficult to estimate the total cost of regulations and that estimates “should be used with a great deal of caution”.3

What is clear is the Trump administration is serious about reducing regulatory burdens businesses face. It has done so by instituting a freeze that has slowed the number of new regulations considerably and by reinterpreting existing statutes to be more favorable to business than during the Obama administration. The Trump administration, in turn, has touted its pro-business stance as having contributed to the acceleration in economic growth over the past year to a 3% annual rate from 2% previously.

Most economic analyses have credited the changes in tax legislation that were enacted at the end of 2017 rather than deregulation for this outcome. The consensus view, for example, is the stimulus from corporate and personal tax cuts were front-end loaded and will add the equivalent of 1% to 1.3% of GDP this year. By comparison, the impact on the economy over the long-term is estimated to be 0.1%-0.2% per annum, compared with 0.5% by the Trump administration.

An alternative view is that of Mickey Levey, chief economist for Berenberg Capital Markets, who contends the easing of burdensome regulations has been a key factor driving U.S. business confidence, production, and capital spending:  “While the deregulatory thrust has received far less attention than 2017’s tax reform deliberations or 2018’s skirmishes on trade policy, it is of utmost importance to business production processes and decisions about hiring, expansion plans, and investment strategy.” As evidence, Levy cites the latest survey by National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which shows that many small businesses have expressed reduced concerns about government requirements, and Levy links this to improved manufacturing sentiment in the ISM survey. 

Levy’s forecast for the U.S. economy over the long-term is upbeat: He believes the improved climate for business investment spending will help lift the potential growth rate of the economy from the Fed’s estimate of 1.8% per annum to at least 2% soon. In this regard, Levy contends that a “growing web of regulations imposed at the national, state and local level” after the 2008-09 financial crisis created policy-induced “supply constraints” that offset the Fed’s unprecedented monetary stimulus.4

At this juncture, it is too early to tell which view is correct. However, insofar as improved business sentiment translates into increased business capital spending, there is some corroboration for the view that burdensome regulations impeded economic growth after the financial crisis.

Impact of Environmental Regulations

Because of difficulty quantifying the impact of regulations on the overall economy, I have taken a closer look at two areas — the environment and financial services — where government regulation is especially important.

With respect to the environment, the signature piece of legislation was the Clean Air Act that was enacted in 1970, which authorized the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations from both industrial sources and automobiles. It was followed by amendments to cover geographic areas that do not meet one or more of the federal quality standards in 1977 and legislation enacted in the early 1990s to deal with the problem of acid rain. Considerable progress has been achieved in battling air and water pollution, which has improved human health and the environment.

Nonetheless, a prevalent view today is environmental policy is extremely complex, has led to ungainly bureaucracies, has incurred high costs, is politically polarized and is also very litigious.5 A report by the Brookings Institution on the 30th anniversary of the creation of the EPA, for example, acknowledged that U.S. companies were complaining about the high cost of compliance, and it cited two studies that estimated the annual cost in the late 1990s to range between $144 billion to $185 billion.6 Businesses have also complained the rules have outlived their usefulness, have resulted in job losses, and make American companies less competitive internationally.7

What would better statutes entail? The consensus among experts is policymakers should seek market-oriented solutions to environmental problems.  One application is the way Congress dealt with the problem of acid rain with an approach that became known as “cap and trade” because the government sets caps on the total amount of allowances and permits them to be traded between companies that emit sulfur dioxide. Economists favor this approach because it means that the reduction in emissions takes place at plants that can accomplish the goal most cheaply, which is consistent with efficient resource allocation. Also, because allowances command a positive price, firms are incented to reduce their emissions and profit by selling allowances.

By comparison, solutions to global warming have proven to be more difficult to implement in the United States. The main problem in dealing with global warming is that it arises from burning fossil fuels, which is basic to the economy and jobs. To burn less requires either constricting the economy, making it more energy efficient, or providing alternative sources of energy. A proposal to tax carbon emissions has been put forth by a group of former government officials — James A. Baker III, George P. Shultz, and Henry M. Paulson — who contend it is a “conservative climate solution” that is based on free-market principles.8 The proposal would substitute the carbon tax for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a complex set of regulations that President Trump has pledged to repeal and which is tied up in many court challenges. However, the Trump administration has failed to endorse the carbon tax plan, because it believes it is too costly.

Financial Regulation: Finding the Right Balance

The considerations entailed in the regulation of the financial sector belie its importance to the overall economy and household savings. The history of the nineteenth century is replete with numerous U.S. banking crises that resulted in people rushing to withdraw deposits before banks collapsed, and the worst experience was the 1930s when more than 5,000 banks failed. It resulted in Glass-Steagall legislation, which prohibited commercial banks from participating in the investment banking activities. Glass Steagall is generally credited as contributing to financial stability during the post-war period when banking crises were few and far between. Nonetheless, several factors coalesced to bring about its repeal as financial markets were liberalized around the world beginning in the 1980s and continuing into the late 2000s.

The case for increased regulation undertaken by the Obama administration was that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was a consequence of market failure. This view was the majority opinion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) that was formed to investigate the causes of the crisis and to make recommendations to enhance the safety and soundness of the financial system. The origins of the crisis were attributed to a bubble in housing and a breakdown in the process of securitizing mortgages: “It was the collapse of the housing bubble –fueled by low-interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages — that was the spark.”9 The severity of the crisis, in turn, was attributed to failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions.

For some observers, the FCIC’s findings are moot, because Congress already had passed the Dodd-Frank Act six months before the report was released. At first blush, many of the goals of Dodd-Frank seem laudatory: providing better consumer protection from abusive financial practices, ending bank bailouts, creating an early warning system, and improving transparency and accounting for exotic instruments.  However, many observers are skeptical that Dodd-Frank can produce the desired results. Among the principal criticisms are the following:

  • The bill is too complex. It contains 849 pages of legislation and several thousand pages in subsequent rule-making documentation.
  • It has proved to be very costly with uncertain benefits. A study by the American Action Forum concluded that at the end of its sixth anniversary Dodd-Frank had imposed more than $36 billion in cost on the financial services industry and 73 million hours of paperwork.10
  • It imposes significant new restrictions on activities of many banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions that had little to do with the crisis.  As a result, it could result in regulatory overkill.
  • It is unlikely to protect against the next financial crisis. One of the key objectives of Dodd-Frank, for example, is to mitigate the risk of “Too Big to Fail.” However, Charles Calomiris of the Columbia Business School contends the provision to provide for the orderly liquidation of insolvent institutions is unworkable, and that the path of least resistance remains bailouts.11 Furthermore, the banking industry has become even more concentrated since the GFC, with the top five U.S. banks today accounting for nearly one-half of all deposits, as compared with 30% before the crisis. 

What can be done to address these issues? Views on this matter are diverse depending on the perspective about the factors contributing to the financial crisis and possible remedies. The approach the U.S. Treasury has advocated would redress what it sees as a problem Dodd-Frank has created: Namely, it contends Dodd-Frank has discouraged banks from extending credit to small businesses and that it has created “an excess of capital.”

In reviewing these issues, however, some observers have challenged Treasury’s claim that regulations have resulted in slower growth of credit.12  While it is often asserted that banks have been constrained from making loans to small businesses due to restrictions, the Fed’s quarterly survey of senior loan officers does not point to an unusual pattern of credit tightening since Dodd-Frank was enacted. 

The biggest changes under consideration by the Treasury would alleviate capital and liquidity requirements for the largest banks. According to the U.S. Treasury, there is now an “excess of capital” that constrains the supply of bank credit, and it calls for a “recalibration” in cases where regulators have set requirements on the largest U.S. banks that are in excess of international standards. Yet the institutions that became troubled during the GFC were ones that sought to boost overall profitability via excessive financial leverage and which funded the purchase of illiquid instruments with short-term borrowings. The trigger for disaster was the value of their assets plummeted when the housing bubble burst and the impact were magnified by the need to de-lever their balance sheets quickly at fire-sale prices.

The bottom line is that while there is a strong case for lessening the regulatory burden of Dodd-Frank, there is also a risk the pendulum could swing back too far in the direction of lessening capital and liquidity requirements, which would leave the financial system exposed to unforeseen risks.

Implications for Financial Markets

The Trump administration’s efforts to deregulate the economy is often cited as a factor that has buoyed the stock market. However, it is difficult to quantify the overall market impact for the same reason that it is hard to quantify the impact on the overall economy.

What is evident is the GFC and its aftermath proved to be a toxic environment for bank stocks and other financials. As a group, the financial sector materially underperformed the broad market from the onset of the crisis in 2008 until the November 2016 election (Figure 2). This reflected a combination of forces including the profitability of financial institutions being crushed by losses on holdings of securities and loans, record low-interest rates and narrow credit spreads, and increased regulatory burdens imposed by Dodd-Frank. In fact, many investors concluded that the aim of the regulations was effectively to make financial institutions behave more like regulated utilities, and financial stocks trailed the broad market.

In the aftermath of the 2016 election, financial stocks surged initially through the end of 2016 and then performed in line with the broad market during 2017 for the first time in nearly a decade. This partly was due to the perception that the Trump administration would seek to roll back Dodd-Frank, while also lessening regulatory oversight of financial institutions.  In addition, financial stocks benefitted from expectations that stronger growth would enable the Federal Reserve to begin normalizing interest rates. Although financials underperformed in the second quarter of 2017, as investors perceived the Fed would slow the pace of policy tightening, the sector still finished the year 19% higher, which was in line with the broad index.  Looking ahead, it is generally agreed the performance of financial stocks is closely tied to the performance of the economy and to the path of interest rates.

Figue 2 Prformance  of Financial Sector Relative to S&P 500 from 2008 to July 2018 followed by Figure 3 Relative Returns November 1 2016 to July 27, 2018


This commentary is a distillation of a chapter in Nick Sargen’s “Investing in the Trump Era: How Economic Policies Impact Financial Markets” published by Palgrave MacMillan in July 2018.

See Mickey Levy commentary for Berenberg Capital Markets, “Chart of the week – U.S. deregulation drives momentum in business and economy,” June 29, 2018.
2 “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms,” SBA, September 2010.
See The Congressional Research Service, March 27, 2017.
4 See Mickey Levy op. cit.
5 See Donald F. Kettl, “Environmental Policy: The Next Generation,” The Brookings Institution, October 1, 1998.
6 Ibid.
The problems, to a large extent, stem from the Clean Air Act being one of the first in a series of statutes that gave citizens the right to regulatory protection, to command agencies to do what is necessary to protect those rights, and to direct courts to enforce the demands.  During the 1970s, consumers and environmental groups also began to receive “intervention” or “public participation” funding to cover their costs for advocating before federal agencies in the public interest.
8 John Schwartz, “A Conservative Climate Solution: Republican Group Calls for Carbon Tax”, The New York Times, February 7, 2017.
9 The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, submitted by The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, January 2011, Official Government edition.
10 Sam Batkins, Dan Goldbeck, “Six Years After Dodd-Frank: Higher Costs, Uncertain Benefits,” American Action Forum, July 20, 2016.
11 Charles W. Calomiris, “Four Principles for Replacing Dodd-Frank,” The Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2017.
12 See Kim Schoenholtz, Money, Banking and Financial Markets, “The Treasury’s Missed Opportunity,” June 19, 2017.

A quick glance at this shows that placing/removing has a small impact on the growth rates of GDP. It has impact but not the earth shaking impact that yourself and others share. Some have watched too many science fiction/Michael Bay movies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

A quick glance at this shows that placing/removing has a small impact on the growth rates of GDP. It has impact but not the earth shaking impact that yourself and others share. Some have watched too many science fiction/Michael Bay movies. 

Where did i say anything about impacts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, king of the county said:

Where did i say anything about impacts?

It is inferred from your posts. If you did not view/feel that the impacts were large/grand/profound/etc., you would not be posting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

It is inferred from your posts. If you did not view/feel that the impacts were large/grand/profound/etc., you would not be posting. 

Dont infer anything from any post ok?

 

 

this is all about a comment Tlaib made get back on the subject at hand 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

So that we do not descend into a debate that is essentially about nothing. 1. would you agree that  there are degrees of impact... so it is not binary (only two choices or possibilities)? 2. Can you quantify the impact of enacting or removing these regulations? Hint... quantify means exact numbers and not adjectives like good, bad, hurtful, etc. 

1  Of course. 

2  Of course.   Compare the growth of Obama, and the growth of Trump.

The growth of Trump can be quantified by subtracting the growth of Obama.   

The difference were tax cuts and deregulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 6:16 AM, king of the county said:

The gift that keeps on giving oh boy really?

Tlaib: Economy Is Better Because People Are 'Demanding It,' Not Trump

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Loading video
PAM KEY
 28 Jul 2019 

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) said the strong economy was not because of President Donald Trump, but instead it is because people are demanding it though protest movements.

 

 

 

 

 

Partial transcript as follows:

TAPPER: So President Trump’s win in Michigan is one of the main reasons he’s president and when it comes to pitching voters here on re-election, economy is better than —

TLAIB: Really because GM is leaving.

TAPPER: But the unemployment rate drops from 5.4% to 4.1% and the GDP has increased 8%. Why should Michigan voters turn over control of the economy to Democrats when it is doing better under President Trump.

TLAIB: It is not handing over to anybody. It is making sure they become priority before anybody else. The numbers that come out, that is not what is felt here because, yeah, they’re low wage part-time jobs.

TAPPER: Wages are going up.

TLAIB: They are going up because people are demanding it go up. Not because Donald Trump wants them to go up. Does that make sense? Because the movement of fight for 15 is growing. The movement to hold corporations accountable is growing and because of movement work. Not because of who is president of the United States. Transformation from the civil rights movement to the labor rights movement didn’t happen because somebody introduced a bill or whoever was president and it happens because people here in the county, Wayne county and Detroit, they demanded it change. So you see a movement of saying no more. One job should be enough. That we should be pushing back against this kind of form of putting corporations and giving them the tax giveaways versus putting in the pockets of American people.

TAPPER: But the economy is doing better in Michigan under President Trump.

TLAIB: But I don’t put President Trump as the reason. It’s because of the people demanding it. If you don’t think the labor rights movement is growing, especially in the service industry, there was a strike downtown from security officers saying we deserve health care.

I think she could give a TUMA. Nasty vile tongue and all. Lick my roid's!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Golfboy said:

1  Of course. 

2  Of course.   Compare the growth of Obama, and the growth of Trump.

The growth of Trump can be quantified by subtracting the growth of Obama.   

The difference were tax cuts and deregulation.

Can you prove that there are no other factors? Economic growth is not a simple equation with the only variable being the R or D next to the name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Can you prove that there are no other factors? Economic growth is not a simple equation with the only variable being the R or D next to the name?

It doesn't MATTER if there are other factors. 

Regulations and taxes take money out of the economy in a wasteful way.

Allowing people and companies to keep their money, and use it how they see fit, expands the economy.

It doesn't matter now much, or if there are other economic factors also in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...