Another Romney Lie about Regulations

[_Kevin Graham]

Regulations have "quadrupled" under Obama??

Where does he come up with this BS?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... der-obama/

[_Droopy]

Graham's problem, in most cases, isn't that he's a liar (although he's been caught red-handed in that cookie more than a few times), but that he picks the lowest hanging cherries he can reach, studiously avoids doing any homework that might poke holes in the dingy of his fatuous, utterly discredited crypto-Marxist/progressive worldview, and pretends that there is only one side to every debate. Graham always approaches any debate with an alternate set of facts, and that should raise red flags for anyone seeking to wend there way toward the truth.

He continues to run to his favorite Democrat party linked/Soros funded spin mills for his "facts," and doesn't seem to understand the difference between serious research and the production of propaganda for the public school educated masses.

Now, let's look at the facts from an intellectually serious source (italics mine):

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/17/deb ... s-say-yes/

Debate Analysis: Did Regulation Quadruple Under Obama? The Numbers Say Yes

James Gattuso

October 17, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Regulatory policy made a cameo appearance in last night’s presidential debate when Governor Mitt Romney took aim at the Obama Administration’s penchant for making rules.

“Regulations have quadrupled,” Romney said. “The rate of regulations quadrupled under this President.”

The assertion led to a mini-controversy this morning over the Obama regulatory record. Left-leaning blogger Andrew Sullivan, Salon.com, and the Huffington Post all jumped in to argue that there has been no such increase in regulation. Obama, in fact, has imposed fewer new regulations than did Bush, they claim.

But they are wrong, and Romney was right.


The number cited by Romney comes from Heritage’s most recent “Red Tape Rising” report, which compared the number and cost of major regulations during the first three years of President Obama’s Administration to the first three years under President George W. Bush.

In terms of total rulemakings, Obama’s total was almost equal to Bush’s—at 10,215 and 10,674, respectively. But most analysts recognize that these gross figures mean little, because most regulations are routine actions, such as aviation maintenance bulletins and fishing season limits.

Far more telling are the numbers of “major” rules: those that will cost the private sector $100 million or more each year. We found that 106 such major new regulations have been adopted during the Obama years, compared to 28 under Bush—a ratio of 3.8 to 1. In terms of cost, Obama’s rules imposed some $46 billion in additional annual burdens, compared to $8.1 billion in new costs during the first three Bush years, a whopping 5.6 to 1 ratio.

These numbers should not be surprising: President Obama has hardly been shy about making the case for increased regulation, and the record reflects that. Governor Romney was right to point that out.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... -year-mark

From the abstract:

During the first three years of the Obama Administration, 106 new major federal regulations added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years. Hundreds more regulations are winding through the rulemaking pipeline as a consequence of the Dodd–Frank financial-regulation law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming crusade, threatening to further weaken an anemic economy and job creation. Congress must increase scrutiny of regulations—existing and new. Reforms should include requiring congressional approval of major rules and mandatory sunset clauses for major regulations.

Civil discussion is not possible so long as one side of the debate will not either engage in serious, critical debate, or approach such debate in a civil, respectful manner.

Then, once having created an environment of hostility, disrespect, and incivility, and received return fire, the now sanctimonious, concerned leftist then turns on his now incensed interlocutor and cries foul, and suddenly becomes an arbiter of the need for civility and intellectual decorum.

And on the game proceeds.

[_Kevin Graham]

All you did was provide the BS article which politifact refuted. Nice going.

[_Tarski]

Graham always approaches any debate with an alternate set of facts, and that should raise red flags for anyone seeking to wend there way toward the truth.

Oh the irony. Tell us again all about how climate science has been dismantled.

He continues to run to his favorite Democrat party linked/Soros funded spin mills for his "facts," .

Ummm, again, who funds your spin factories? (Heritage Foundation etc.)

If merely pointing out that someone with some ideology funded something is all it takes to win a debate then you are in serious trouble Droopy.

And, Kevin is right. You just pointed back to the very article being debunked.
One can't debunk a debunking by just by reasserting the thing debunked.

[_Droopy]

All you did was provide the b***s*** article which politifact refuted. Nice going.

They refuted nothing, as I have conclusively shown. All they did was muddy the water by cleverly parsing the data. The Heritage argument stands, based as it is on documentary facts (you might have noticed that the core data itself comes from the GAO).

You just need to bow out of the arena of ideas, Kevin, as you clearly have none of your own.

[_Droopy]

Ummm, again, who funds your spin factories? (Heritage Foundation etc.)

A think tank is not a "spin factory," and Heritage, as are most prestigous think tanks of this kind, non-partisan (unlike Politifact, Factcheck, and places like Media Matters, which is a purely partisan propaganda hopper, and was funded and constructed as such.). Numerous individuals and corporations fund Heritage.

If merely pointing out that someone with some ideology funded something is all it takes to win a debate then you are in serious trouble Droopy.

Kevin's entire body of arguments against anything any conservative ever says here is grounded soley in this ad hominem circumstantial argument, so I thow it back at him now and then, and he makes that very easy to do as he does not understand the difference between serious scholarship/research and the "spin" he's always claiming everyone else is engaging in.

And, Kevin is right. You just pointed back to the very article being debunked.

But it hasn't been debunked. It still stands a factually accurate and as documentarily correct. All Graham's Obama sycophants and Politifact did was carefully cherry pick a certain class of regulatory bloat and present that as the entire regulatory increase during Obama's reign - gross intellectual dishonesty that hid the actual extent of the increase. Heritage just elucidated and clarified that major regulatory initiatives under Obama were conveniently omitted by the spinsters.



One can't debunk a debunking by just by reasserting the thing debunked.[/quote]

[_Droopy]

Ummm, again, who funds your spin factories? (Heritage Foundation etc.)

A think tank is not a "spin factory," and Heritage, as are most prestigous think tanks of this kind, non-partisan (unlike Politifact, Factcheck, and places like Media Matters, which is a purely partisan propaganda hopper, and was funded and constructed as such.). Numerous individuals and corporations fund Heritage.

If merely pointing out that someone with some ideology funded something is all it takes to win a debate then you are in serious trouble Droopy.

Kevin's entire body of arguments against anything any conservative ever says here is grounded soley in this ad hominem circumstantial argument, so I thow it back at him now and then, and he makes that very easy to do as he does not understand the difference between serious scholarship/research and the "spin" he's always claiming everyone else is engaging in.

And, Kevin is right. You just pointed back to the very article being debunked.

But it hasn't been debunked. It still stands a factually accurate and as documentarily correct. All Graham's Obama sycophants and Politifact did was carefully cherry pick a certain class of regulatory bloat and present that as the entire regulatory increase during Obama's reign - gross intellectual dishonesty that hid the actual extent of the increase. Heritage just elucidated and clarified that major regulatory initiatives under Obama were conveniently omitted by the spinsters.

Far more telling are the numbers of “major” rules: those that will cost the private sector $100 million or more each year. We found that 106 such major new regulations have been adopted during the Obama years, compared to 28 under Bush—a ratio of 3.8 to 1. In terms of cost, Obama’s rules imposed some $46 billion in additional annual burdens, compared to $8.1 billion in new costs during the first three Bush years, a whopping 5.6 to 1 ratio.

That's called "spin" and its intellectually dishonest (which is why Kevin likes it so much) because it withholds facts, data,and evidence to make its case and to fool people like you and Kevin who desperately need to be fooled.

[_Bret Ripley]

... he's been caught red-handed in that cookie more than a few times

Must be some cookie.

[_Droopy]

Oh, but there's more:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/20/eco ... der-obama/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/24/fac ... gulations/

Politifact gets away with its deception by massaging the data in some very clever ways and engaging in some interesting subjective interpretation:

(The numbers on the OMB Watch chart differ from Heritage because the conservative group only looked at economically significant regulations that it deemed to be harmful to the private sector, a subset of the total number. Also, Heritage relied on records from the Government Accountability Office, which includes regulations from independent agencies in addition to those in the executive branch.)

Yup. When you look at, not just routine actions, which are about the same, but significant new regulations that have actual effects relative to investment and hiring and which takes capital out of the economy, there is a vast difference between the Bush and Obama years. The absolute numbers don't lie (like intellectual hacks tend to do).

28 new major regulatory initiatives under Bush, compared to 106 under Obama. Spin it, Morlocks. And what is the practical effectual difference between "independent agencies" that were created by and exist at the behest of Congress, and executive branch agencies, as if the head of the executive branch has no power to influence regulatory behavior at "independent" agencies? This slight-of-hand hides the fact that what are called "independent agencies are, in actuality, nothing more than agencies that exist outside the normal executive departments within the executive branch which are those headed by a cabinet secretary serving under the sitting president. Constitutionally, those agencies are part of the executive branch, but "independent" of presidential control primarily because the President has limited power to fire the heads of the various agencies. This does not mean, in any sense, that these agencies are either beyond presidential influence or that, when headed and staffed by like-minded political allies or ideologues (think the EPA) there is not significant collusion and association between such agencies and the executive branch. Hence, Heritage's use of such data is perfectly legitimate.

[_cinepro]

Regulations have "quadrupled" under Obama??

Where does he come up with this b***s***?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... der-obama/

Romney wasn't up burning the midnight oil looking through legislative records to come up with that number. And he didn't pull it out of thin air or intentionally lie.

As explained in the politifact article:

The Romney campaign told us the basis for the statement was research by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. An ongoing study by Heritage documents regulation activity by the federal government. Its latest update said President George W. Bush’s administration adopted 28 "major regulations" that increased burdens on the private sector in its first three years, compared with 106 by the Obama administration.

So Romney read research from a well regarded but admittedly right-wing think tank and believed it.