Since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued 2,827 new final regulations, equaling 24,915 pages in the Federal Register, totaling approximately 24,915,000 words.
The Gutenberg Bible is only 1,282 pages and 646,128 words. Thus, the new EPA regulations issued by the Obama Administration contain 19 times as many pages as the Bible and 38 times as many words.
The Obama EPA regulations have 22 times as many words as the entire Harry Potter series, which includes seven books with 1,084,170 words. They have 5,484 times as many words as the U.S. Constitution, which has 4,543 words, including the signatures; and 17,088 times as many words as the Declaration of Independence, which has 1,458 words including signatures.
Using the Regulations.gov website and the Federal Register itself, CNSNews.com found 2,827 distinct rules published by the EPA since January 2009 covering, among other things, greenhouse gases, air quality, emissions and hazardous substances.
The Federal Register publishes documents, including proposed rules, notices, interim rules, corrections, drafts of final rules and final rules. The CNSNews.com tabulation included only final rules from the EPA.
To get an approximate word count for each EPA rule in the Federal Register, CNSNews.com evaluated a few random rules from the 2,827 EPA regulations published since Obama took office, and calculated an approximate average of 1,000 words per page. From this, CNSNews.com calculated that the 2,827 final EPA rules that have been published in the Federal Register so far take up 24,915,000 words.
This is only an approximation because some pages in the Federal Register carry more words than others, and some regulations end in the beginning or middle of a page. For example, one of the regulations was five-pages long and totaled 5,586 words, an average of 1,117 words per page.
Another regulation was three-pages long and 3,150 words, which averaged to 1,050 words per page. another rule was four-pages long and 4,426 words, or an average 1,106 words per page.
“The broader question of whether the Obama Administration’s EPA is “overreaching” in its regulatory effects has not gone away. Critics both in Congress and outside of it regularly accuse the agency of overkill,” states a Congressional Research Service report, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
“EPA’s actions, both individually and in sum, have generated controversy,” the CRS report states. “Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns, through bipartisan letters commenting on proposed regulations and through introduced legislation that would delay, limit, or prevent certain EPA actions.”
Yet, EPA proponents are fighting for more rules. “Environmental groups and other supporters of the agency disagree that EPA has overreached. Many of them believe that the agency is, in fact, moving in the right direction, including taking action on significant issues that had been long delayed or ignored in the past. In several cases, environmental advocates would like the regulatory actions to be stronger,” said the CRS report.
Right to work laws have led to skyrocketing manufacturing growth in the auto industry, according to a new study.
The National Institute of Labors Relations Research, an employment policy think tank, found that the auto industry’s flight from coercive unionization has produced a boom in right to work states, such as Tennessee. The institute traced federal labor statistics from 2002 to 2010 and discovered a dramatic shift in where the nation’s cars are being built.
“Considering just the 22 states that had Right to Work laws from 2002 to 2012, the Right to Work share of nationwide automotive manufacturing output grew from 36% to 52% over the decade,” NILRR researcher Stan Greer wrote on the institute’s website. “Real manufacturing GDP in these 22 Right to Work states grew by 87% from 2002 to 2012, but fell by 2% in forced-unionism states.”
Foreign carmakers, such as Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen have established factories in right to work states, as well as non-union shops in Kentucky. Additionally, Ford, GM, and Chrysler have shifted jobs and supplier contracts from forced unionization states to right to work states.
“As recently as 2002, just 21% of the total U.S. output in automotive manufacturing took place in Right to Work states,” Greer found.
That gap will likely widen when the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis release manufacturing data for 2013 later this year.
Michigan and Indiana, two of the largest automobile manufacturing hubs in the United States, became right to work states in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Those laws will allow autoworkers to opt out of the United Auto Workers when their current contracts expire, which could signal a steeper decline of the number of cars built by unionized workers.
Auto expert Ted Niedermeyer said that Big Labor’s dominance of the auto industry “is on its last legs.”
“The fact that the UAW has not responded well to competition explains why auto production in this country is only expanding in non-union states,” he said.
The UAW has been trying for many years to insinuate itself into a manufacturing facility in a right-to-work state in order to boost its sagging membership. The union had its best chance when it secured Volkswagen’s support to unionize a Chattanooga, Tenn., facility, Niedermeyer said. While management embraced unionization, workers soundly rejected the UAW in a February vote.
Patrick Semmens, a spokesman at the National Right to Work Committee, said that workers have witnessed the negative effects that come with union representation, as companies shift jobs out of traditional manufacturing sites. The fact that business is booming in union-free shops reminds workers of the potential downsides of unionization.
“The moral case for Right to Work as a means of protecting the individual rights and free choice of workers is strong enough all on its own. But time and time again we see that freedom for workers also benefits the economy of states that choose to protect worker choice and the booming auto industry in Right to Work states is just another example,” Semmens said.
Niedermeyer added that the rejection of the UAW in Tennessee is only the first sign of lagging support for unions among autoworkers.
“Beyond even the UAW’s rejection at the Chattanooga, Tenn., Volkswagen plant we are now seeing pro-union workers at the Mercedes plant in Vance, AL telling the UAW that their presence has been counterproductive,” he said. “The UAW-affiliated automakers have been shedding production capacity over the long term due to eroding market share, and are unlikely to add any significant amount of new production jobs in the US any time soon.”
These trends could play a central role as right to work laws are debated in Missouri and other states, according to NILRR’s Greer writes. Lawmakers should have to reconcile the impact that forced unionization could have on local economies.
“The overwhelming advantage Right to Work states have enjoyed over forced-unionism states in attracting automotive manufacturing investment ought to put the burden of proof on Big Labor legislators in forced-unionism states like Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio who claim it makes no difference to companies considering new plant construction or expansions whether unionism is voluntary or not,” he said.
We were warned…
In January 2008 Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”
He promised that his plan would cause electricity rates to skyrocket.
He wasn’t kidding.
On Monday the Obama administration unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants.
FOX News reported:
The Obama administration on Monday unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants, a controversial regulation aimed at fulfilling a key plank of President Obama’s climate change agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants existing plants to cut pollution by 30 percent by 2030, under the plan.
The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama’s Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called “cap-and-trade” plan to limit such emissions. The EPA plan will go into effect in June 2016, following a one-year comment period. States will then be responsible for executing the rule with some flexibility.
They are expected to be allowed to require power plants to make changes such as switching from coal to natural gas or enact other programs to reduce demand for electricity and produce more energy from renewable sources.
They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.
If a state refuses to create a plan, the EPA can make its own.
Obama’s energy policies will disproportionately harm the poor, middle class and minorities.
Real Clear Energy reported:
A study by Eugene M. Trisko for American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity reviewed the disproportionate impact of higher energy costs on differing income groups from 2001 to 2011.
The study found that the amount of money spent on energy for half of American households that make less than $50,000 almost doubled rising from 12 percent in 2001 to 20 percent in 2011.
Minorities with lower average incomes than white households are disproportionately harmed by rising energy prices.
For example, in 2009, 67 percent of black households and 62 percent of Hispanic households had average incomes below $50,000 in contrast with only 46 percent of white households.
Since minority households have lower incomes than white households, rising energy prices will take a larger share of their family’s disposable income leaving fewer dollars for housing, medicine and clothes.
Obama’s refusal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, new greenhouse gas regulations from the EPA and discussions of a carbon tax provides more evidence that Obama’s anti-fossil fuel agenda will force energy prices higher.