With Obama, Regulations Are Back in Fashion

[TomCADem]

Source: NY Times

Over the last year, the Obama administration has pressed forward on hundreds of new mandates, while also stepping up enforcement of rules by increasing the ranks of inspectors and imposing higher fines for violations.

A new age of regulation is well under way in Washington, a fact somewhat obscured by the high-profile debates over the health care overhaul and financial oversight system and by fresh calls for greater federal vigilance spurred by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the deaths of coal miners in West Virginia.

The surge in rule-making has resulted from an unusual confluence of factors, from repeated outbreaks of food-borne illnesses to workplace disasters. Some industry groups, wanting foreign competitors to adhere to the same standards they must meet, have backed new federal mandates. The push for some of the measures began at the end of the Bush administration, a tacit acknowledgment that its deregulatory agenda had gone too far.

* * *

But complaints from industry leaders are intensifying. Manufacturers, home builders, toymakers and others say that Washington has been overzealous about imposing new requirements, and they warn of serious consequences for businesses and consumers.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/us/politics/13rules.html

[Kolesar]

1. I cannot believe that bored republicans exist on DU just to unrec the threads

Are you a bunch of palsied shut-ins?

[Judi Lynn]

2. Sad, isn't it? Time weighs heavily on their palsied hands in the depths of aged mothers' basements.

Great post to read, so glad to see it. It's about time, too.

Recommending.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[TomCADem]

29. Many Libertarians See Regulations As A Threat To Liberty

So, its not too surprising that the increased emphasis on regulation, as well as financial reform, would cause such folks concern. Many people still have faith in the free market notwithstanding 2008.

[daylan b]

10. "I can't believe so and so unreced this thread" is the new "FIRST"

of DU.

[CreekDog]

25. "FIRST" has never really been common at DU

:hi:

[CTLawGuy]

36. that is one of DUs greatest strengths

NT

[jenmito]

22. They're posters who refuse to give credit to Obama for ANYTHING he does,

claiming they don't believe him or he doesn't mean it. :eyes:

[Cha]

41. Yeah, poor things..too ignorant

to know the venom disapates their credibility.

[StatGirl]

3. An "unusual confluence of factors"?

How about, "The natural consequence of decades of deregulation, industry capture of regulatory agencies, and a reliance on corporate 'voluntary compliance'"?

[polichick]

20. Exactly! nt

[Dr.Phool]

4. I hope so.

I was beginning to think that everyone in Washington forgot how to.

Let the "industry leaders" cry all they want to. They fucked it up when they had the chance to "voluntarily" regulate themselves.

[Jennicut]

5. Industry leaders are upset. What else is new. Now if only they bailed out the economy and not us.

[The Wielding Truth]

13. Hurray! He is changing things for the better.

[NJmaverick]

6. K & R!

[nxylas]

7. Waaah! Socialism! He's taking away our freedom!

© All Republicans

[cindyperry2009]

15. amen

[athenasatanjesus]

8. Obama does alot of things wrong,yet he still does 1000x better a job then any right winger.

[obxhead]

64. yes

He has pushed the right wing agenda far better than any right winger would dare. His ability in that respect is remarkable. :rofl:

[happygoluckytoyou]

9. REGULATIONS = RULES..... DEREGULATION = who the fuck wouldn't want rules?

[groundloop]

11. Great news. Naturally we'll be hearing how new rules will kill jobs

K & R. Glad to read this.

It won't be long before industries being regulated will cry that new rules are killing jobs - never mind that coal, oil, and how many other industries have been killing workers.

[proudohioan]

12. Good! Regulations should never have gone out of "fashion".....

but then again, maybe the era of deregulations has shown the repukes just how well 'bidnis' does when it's left up to self-regulation.

How'd that e-coli thingy work out for ya? You betcha!

[tilsammans]

14. K 'n' R!

:dem:

Message to corporatists: Get over it, you greedy bastards.

[lumpy]

16. Way passed time. Regulate imports, like contaminated

drywall, lead impermiated jewelry/toys etc, contaminated textiles, impure food, unsafe electical goods etc. Damn it! , we need regulation on all fronts from monetary dealings to baby bumpers.

[nicky187]

32. Time to stop letting ...

... products that don't meet U.S. standards be imported into & sold in the U.S.

[humbled_opinion]

17. Interesting dillema

The government raises taxes to create more offices and positions so it can regulate industry, businesses find loopholes or pay higher costs to comply with these regulations and pass the cost increases on to consumers. Doesn't seem fair in my mind it seems like we are getting screwed twice for the same nickle.

[CreekDog]

26. Then what is fair?

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

18. Window Dressing = no real teeth for true regulation. eom

[fascisthunter]

47. exactly

yet sychophants will eat it up

[cornermouse]

19. Regulations mean nothing without inspectors to enforce and follow up.

n/t

[phleshdef]

24. Well, I don't have the numbers for all agencies, but the FDA alone hired hundreds more regulators.

[cornermouse]

27. And your factual basis for that would be?

A link would be nice.

[phleshdef]

28. The fact that you are asking for the link shows that you didn't read the OPs article.

I don't think you should respond to threads without actually read their content, but here goes.

FROM the link the OP provided:

"Now, a newly muscular Food and Drug Administration will have more authority, money and staff for greater scrutiny of products. Since bottoming out at 1,309 inspectors in the 2007 fiscal year, the agency now has 1,800 inspectors with 150 more on the way. Inspections rose 5 percent in 2009 after years of declines and are expected to increase steadily in coming years."

1800 + 150 - 1309 = 641 new inspectors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/us/politics/13rules.html

[cornermouse]

33. How many ports do we have?

How many food processing plants? How many meat packing plants?

A whole 641 new inspectors? a 5% increase in inspections? I am completely underwhelmed.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[olegramps]

50. Well, I am overwhelmed with your ignorance about the article.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

53. Not me....

It's pretty much par for the course.

[cornermouse]

57. Argue the facts if you can.

http://www.manta.com/mb_34_C300B_000/meat_packing_plant...

"We have 4,111 company profiles for Food Processing Plants in the United States."

4111 x 3 shifts = 12,333 inspectors for just one inspector per shift per plant for one industry
--------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ports_in_the_Unite...
149 ports in the U.S. (because we import so much of the stuff we buy)
http://www.aapa-ports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumb...
for an alternative website

I'll let you figure out the total tonnage of stuff entering our borders basically without inspection.

And you think we should be happy because we have a grand total of 1,800 inspectors? A little bit of a gap between the 12,333 needed to barely cover for the food plants alone and the "beefed up" 1,800 that we currently have, don't you think?

:sarcasm: or irony. Take your pick.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

59. Read the OP....if you can (nt)

[cornermouse]

60. We need to hire another 10,533 inspectors just to cover

the food processors 24 hours a day. That leaves 0 inspectors to protect us from defective imports like poisoned dog food, children's jewelry made from toxic metals, contaminated drywall.

You can't argue the facts and numbers away.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

62. You also can't hire/train 10,000 inspectors by this time next week (nt)

[cornermouse]

63. He's been in office 15 months as I've been informed elsewhere.

Granted we can't train 10,000 inspectors in a week. But with the massive unemployment problem we're suffering from shouldn't we have hired more than 461 over the last 15 months?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

65. Step One

Get Congress to authorize the funding, which is easier said than done considering the anti-regulation position of the Republican Party.

Step Two is to find people qualified to do the work -- anything other than entry-level requires a four-year degree. And you can't just take a laid off auto workers because even at entry level, the USDA requires the applicant have some background in food production or manufacturing.

Step Three is to find people qualified to do the work who are willing to relocate to some pretty godforsaken parts of the United States -- I won't offend peoples' regional sensibilities by naming names, but they know who they are.

Step Four is to relocate these people to these places.

461 employees would be the equivalent of a medium to large-sized corporation that has spring up, largely within the past 12 months. That's a pretty good start. If the government can keep adding a thousand inspectors a year for the next seven years, we'd be in a much better place.

[phleshdef]

51. Thats a 25% increase of inspectors with more to come.

You said we needed more inspectors, I showed you that the policy to increase inspectors in well in effect. I doubt you even understand how many inspectors are needed or how much work they can get done per inspector. I know that I don't know but the difference between yourself and me and I admit it.

[cornermouse]

55. One little problem.

http://www.manta.com/mb_34_C300B_000/meat_packing_plants

"We have 4,111 company profiles for Food Processing Plants in the United States."

4111 x 3 shifts = 12,333 inspectors for just one inspector per shift per plant for one industry
--------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ports_in_the_United_States
149 ports in the U.S. (because we import so much of the stuff we buy)
http://www.aapa-ports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=900&navItemNumber=551
for an alternative website

I'll let you figure out the total tonnage of stuff entering our borders basically without inspection.

And you think we should be happy because we have a grand total of 1,800 inspectors? A little bit of a gap between the 12,333 needed to barely cover for the food plants alone and the "beefed up" 1,800 that we currently have, don't you think?
:sarcasm: or irony. Take your pick.

[phleshdef]

67. What food industry expert can you cite that sais we need daily inspections every shift?

Nice attempt to pull something out of your ass but you need to back those numbers up with a merited opinion.

[cornermouse]

69. Well, I have friends and relatives who worked in two different types of food industries.

Which horror story do you prefer to hear?

[Cha]

37. Aren't you just full of the obvious.

[olegramps]

49. It is obvious that you didn't even care to read the article before attempting to slam Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

21. The illusion of regulation is back in fashion but the foxes still mack the henhouse

[Demeter]

23. Obama, Regulate Thyself!

Prosecute war criminals, banksters, corporate thieves and vandals. Restore habeus corpus,the Bill of Rights, and privacy. End the illegal wars, the torture, the renditions, the predator drones, and the bluster.


Mr. President, heal thyself and the Executive Branch!

[Cha]

40. President Obama is doing a great job

in spite of all the lies and cheap shots swirling around him.

[tiptoe]

43. +1 nt

[avaistheone1]

46. Bravo.

I haven't seen any hard-nosed regulations out of this administration yet. Only more rhetoric.

[Coco2]

30. I'll believe it when the Regs are in place AND enforced...not till then! n/t

[TomCADem]

34. A Common Conservative Argument - No Need For New Regulations, Just Enforce The Ones On The Books

Of course, the financial meltdown, which is magnified by unregulated derivaties and the inability of regulators to oversee such operations underscores the limits of the laws on the books. Still, that doesn't stop the talking point that we do not need new laws or regulations, just enforce the ones on the books.

[Coco2]

35. The Regs were removed, they need to be replaced!!!! that is what I am saying! n/t

[Cha]

38. I for one don't care what you believe.

[Moochy]

72. Thanks for sharing and making DU friendlier!

:grouphug:

[Cali_Democrat]

31. Just another reminder of why we need to vote Democratic

The rethugs will do their best to reverse and remove as many regulations as possible given the chance.

[progressoid]

48. Unfortunately a good number of Democrats are on the limited and/or de-regulation band wagon too.

And a couple hold high positions in the White House.

[Cali_Democrat]

66. Yet the regulations continue to increase

So they don't have that much influence obviously.

[Cha]

42. "REGULATIONS I CAN BELIEVE IN"

".... When considering the kind of changes we've seen between this administration and the last, we tend to think about economic, national security, legal, and social policy. More generally, we might also think about the shift away from corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement.

But one of the most dramatic changes is one that often goes overlooked: "A new age of regulation is well under way in Washington."

In a burst of rule-making, federal agencies have toughened or proposed new standards to protect Americans from tainted eggs, safeguard construction workers from crane accidents, prevent injuries from baby walkers and even protect polar bears from extinction.

Over the last year, the Obama administration has pressed forward on hundreds of new mandates, while also stepping up enforcement of rules by increasing the ranks of inspectors and imposing higher fines for violations.

The new aggressiveness reflects the new cops on the beat, and the contrast with the Bush administration is an intentionally sharp one. While the Bush administration mostly favored voluntary compliance by industry, senior Obama administration officials argue that carefully crafted regulation can be a positive force.

"We start from the perspective that we all want a cleaner environment, longer lives, improved safety," said Peter R. Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews major regulations. "Smart regulation can make people's lives better off."

Industry leaders are complaining, a development that is neither surprising nor compelling. As the FDA gets stronger, after being gutted under the Bush administration, it's to be expected that industries are going to lament new burdens. But after a little too much "e. coli conservatism," I much prefer the new-and-improved way.

I do wish this area of public policy was more appreciated, though. It's the kind of detail few Americans consider before voting, but when a president takes office, he/she does more than just become the head of the White House and a political party; he/she also leads a large federal bureaucracy with vast regulatory power.

Over the last three decades, through Republican administrations, that regulatory power was deliberately stunted, favoring business interests over consumer interests. The bureaucracy has some discretion over which laws are enforced more vigorously, and the Bush administration, for example, chose a lax attitude when it came to consumer and worker protections. Obama, in contrast, is using the executive branch in a very different, more progressive fashion, emphasizing strong federal oversight, and evidence-based analysis, with the public's interests in mind."

Continue reading...
—Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

And, yet there's whining about President Obama making our lives better..go figure.

[CTLawGuy]

44. but that can't be right

Obama is ideologically the SAME or MORE conservative than Bill Clinton, who REMOVED restrictions and DEREGULATED the economy. I know cuz DU told me so. :crazy:

[dixiegrrrrl]

45. One cautionary note on this.

In the article, there is a quote by Peter Orzag, and if you click his name, his bio page comes up.

Note this:
". Orszag is a protégé of Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary. The prominence of such "Rubinesque" centrists is vexing to liberals and union leaders in the Democratic Party, who favor some trade protectionism and more domestic spending and oppose the centrists' emphasis on free trade and fiscal responsibility."

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[olegramps]

54. The biggest problem that I have with Obama is his attempt at bipartisanship

Some of his appointments are a disaster. As example is the appointment of Anne M. Northup to the Consumer Protection Safety Commission. Its like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

"Toy makers are also vigorously challenging rules imposed as part of a 2008 law that Mr. Obama helped push while he was still in the Senate that effectively bans lead in all children’s products and then requires follow-up testing."

"Anne M. Northup, a former Republican congresswoman from Kentucky whom Mr. Obama appointed to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, said an excessive number of new mandates was harming the toy market."

I suppose she is referring to those mandates that outlawed the importation of Chinese toys in which their makers used lead in the products. The only people that are complaining are the evil greedy fucking Republican scum. The fact is that we should slap a huge tariff on their crap that they are flooding the market with. We don't have any toy manufactures anymore since they moved all of their production overseas to exploit the cheap labor market and bitch when they can't poison the kids at will for higher profits.

[TheKentuckian]

61. Damn, I didn't know that Anne Northup friggin sucks ass

Dude is delusional or corrupt himself. No sane and competent soul would put people like this in a regulatory position and surely no Democrat, not even a moderate, as I imagine such folk.

Fraudulent at best with these kind of personnel choices.

[andym]

56. Sounds like there is a signficant push to reverse the Reagan-inspired deregulation ideology

Perhaps the most significant success of the Obama administration might be to bring back the idea that national government can exert significant positive effects on people's lives in an efficient way. Until that idea takes hold, the most treasured liberal policy desires (such as single-payer) will not happen.

[Moochy]

58. More Like the Emperor's New Clothing

"We agree that accountability is icky, but hey Mr President,that robe you are wearing looks great!" - Atty. General Holder to Obama sometime in 2009

[Cha]

70. Cheap shots are a dime a dozen on the internet.

[Moochy]

71. But blind loyalists?

Priceless!

[Phx_Dem]

68. I want to hear Dems on Sunday shows talking about Cheney's

decision to not require acoustic switches and God knows what other security measures. This huge fucking disaster is HIS FAULT first and foremost.

:mad:

[Cha]

73. Yes, that would be a logical

important step to make.