$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate

[_bcspace]

Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

And it could grow, warned the author of the report, Clyde Wayne Crews, a CEI vice president.

Complying with Health and Human Services Department requirements alone, he revealed, costs $184 billion a year, yet regulators are still drafting the rules for the 2,400-page Obamacare law that kicks into gear in 2014.

Crews has made a working project of his "Tip of the Costberg" report which he regularly updates. In it, he compares the cost of regulations estimated by federal agencies to a much broader list of estimates from multiple federal and independent sources. And even then, he said, it doesn't include hard-to-calculate costs associated with antitrust intervention, regulation of electricity networks, or the cost of constrained access to natural resources.

"While OMB officially reports amounts of only up to $88.6 billion in 2010 dollars," said Crews, "the non-tax cost of government intervention in the economy, without performing a sweeping survey, appears to total up to $1.806 trillion annually."

But, he added, "according to back of the envelope surveys and roundups, with gaps big enough to fit the beltway through, that up to $1.806 trillion annually and in many categories perhaps even considerably more, is a defensible assessment of the annual impact on the economy."

His estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration which the White House distanced itself from. For comparison, the total U.S. GDP is $15 trillion.

The wave of Obama regulations has become a huge sore point in the business world with groups as large as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce down to the International Franchise Association crying for fewer rules. The administration, however, argues that the rules and regulations pushed out under the president have made products and workplaces safer.

Below are some of the estimates from Crews' report:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-trillion-shock-obama-regs-cost-20-times-estimate/article/2508466#.UFvnyFH4LKr

[_Bond James Bond]

I recommend the Republican health care plan. Don't cover anyone except millionaires who can pay doctors out of pocket with gold and precious stones. The old, disabled, and poor will die first and Mitt Romney will drink their blood for sustenance. He will grow strong enough to combat Communism and protect Citizen Corporations.

[_Kevin Graham]

How long will you continue to post nonsense from all these Hard Right sources who lack any credibility beyond their immediate nutjob focus group? The fact is regulations have decreased at a rate much slower under Obama than they were under created and implemented under Bush. Regulation isn't the problem and never was. Just the opposite actually: deregulation. The only folks whining about regulations are the corporations who want to be able to screw the consumers/working people who rely on them. They're the same sources of funding that bankroll these idiotic Right Wing/Libertarian outfits you keep citing. Get a clue and start quoting reliable, trustworthy sources.

[_bcspace]

Poor addled KG. He can't disprove the numbers and he missed the point which was that the regs were sold to us much more cheaply than they actually were.

[_Bond James Bond]

Like I said. Create a bcspace link thread and just post all your links rather than starting a new thread for each article.

[_Kevin Graham]

Poor addled KG. He can't disprove the numbers and he missed the point which was that the regs were sold to us much more cheaply than they actually were.

You haven't proved the numbers. You just throw out BS assertions masquerading as "studies" by some fringe interest group disguised as think tank, usually developed by the same nutjobs who come up with the FOX News talking points. They are a dime a dozen and have no credibility anywhere in the real world. How many times do we have to prove your sources are crap before you stop quoting them?

[_ajax18]

Didn't you get the memo BCSpace? Only communist party approved websites are accepted as truth.

[_Droopy]

I recommend the Republican health care plan. Don't cover anyone except millionaires who can pay doctors out of pocket with gold and precious stones. The old, disabled, and poor will die first and Mitt Romney will drink their blood for sustenance. He will grow strong enough to combat Communism and protect Citizen Corporations.

This just keeps me coming back here. The steep educational levels, penetrating, critical argument, and intellectual seriousness of the discourse.

I can't understand why I'd ever stay away from here.

[Guest]

You haven't proved the numbers. You just throw out BS assertions masquerading as "studies" by some fringe interest group disguised as think tank, usually developed by the same nutjobs who come up with the FOX News talking points.

Moving carefully and circumspectly back to reality, whether or not one agrees with their arguments and perspectives, CEI is a respected think tank deploying some of the most capable minds and intellectual firepower in the country (its nice to know Kevin thinks people like Jeremy Rabkin are a"dime a dozen"). Unlike some obscure message boards and unlike various deeply undereducated, poorly read, but very vocal individuals here and there, these are serious scholars and thinkers with serious ideas. Agree or not, cartoon caricatures reflect only on the cartoonist.

http://cei.org/experts

They are a dime a dozen and have no credibility anywhere in the real world. How many times do we have to prove your sources are s*** before you stop quoting them?

[_Quasimodo]

Droopy, bc and ajax have formed a Bund. I wondered how long it would take for such kindred souls to join into a common force. We can only expect ldsfqs and subgenius to join soon.

We're doomed. How can any of us compete with that sort of intellectual combination?