Monthly Archives: November 2012

CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week in Regulation


This week in the world of regulation:

  • Last week, 61 new final rules were published, up from 60 the previous hurricane-shortened week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every 2 hours and 46 minutes — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  • All in all, 3,256 final rules have been published in the Federal Register this year.
  • If this keeps up, the total tally for 2012 will be 3,795 new rules.
  • Last week, 1,168 new pages were added to the 2012 Federal Register, for a total of 67,425 pages.
  • At its current pace, the 2012 Federal Register will run 77,323 pages.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. The 43 such rules published so far in 2012 have compliance costs of at least $23.9 billion. Two of the rules do not have cost estimates, and a third cost estimate does not give a total annual cost. We assume that rules lacking this basic transparency measure cost the bare minimum of $100 million per year. The true cost is almost certainly higher.
  • One economically significant rule was published last week.
  • So far, 313 final rules that meet the broader definition of “significant” have been published in 2012.
  • So far this year, 610 final rules affect small business; 88 of them are significant rules.

Highlights from final rules published last week:

Quote of the Day

From p. 57 of George Stigler’s witty and often humorous essay collection, The Intellectual and the Marketplace:

Economics is sometimes called the dismal science. I resent the phrase, for only young children should get angry at a corpus of knowledge that prevents hopeless and costly endeavors.

GOP Evolving on Immigration

The hardline stance that many Republicans hold on immigration policy has long struck me as immoral, not just economically harmful. High-skilled immigrants are the most entrepreneurial group in America. Low-skilled immigrants not only improve their own lives by coming here, they improve everyone else’s by further refining the division of labor. Economics jargon aside, it is unethical for some people to decide where other, peaceful people may or may not live — and to use force to do so.

Tuesday’s election results are causing many GOP leaders to reconsider their nativist leanings. Just look at these Politico stories from the last 24 hours or so. Their sheer number is surprising, since immigration isn’t a particularly hot issue right now:

  • Haley Barbour urges immigration reform
    “[W]e are in a global battle for capital and labor, and we need to have what is good economic policy for America on immigration because we do need labor. We not only need Ph.Ds in science and technology, we need skilled workers and we need unskilled workers. And we need to have an immigration policy that is good economic policy, and then — and then the politics will take care of itself.”
  • Rick Santorum: GOP must reach Latinos
    “Yeah, I think we did lose a lot of [the] Hispanic vote,” he said. “I think one of the reasons [is], we didn’t talk about all the issues that that community, which, as all immigrant communities are, there are a disproportionate [number who are] middle and lower income who are trying to struggle to rise. We didn’t have a strong message for those folks. And I’m not just talking Hispanics, I’m talking writ large.”
  • Can Marco Rubio save the GOP on immigration?
    Rubio and his advisers are well aware of the risks: He must thread a needle as he tries to portray an open, tolerant party while not incensing the ultraconservative base who want tall fences, closed borders and nothing that looks like amnesty for illegal immigrants.
  • Krauthammer pro-amnesty, not citizenship
    “I think Republicans can change their position, be a lot more open to actual amnesty with enforcement — amnesty, everything short of citizenship — and to make a bold change in their policy.
  • Hannity: I’ve ‘evolved’ on immigration and support a ‘pathway to citizenship’
    “The majority of people here, if some people have criminal records you can send them home, but if people are here, law-abiding, participating for years, their kids are born here, you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done.”

This is big. I suspect that their motives for opening up are electoral, rather than from economic knowledge or humanitarianism. It could even be that they’ve always been on the tolerant side of things, but thought until now that saying so wouldn’t fly with the median GOP voter. I don’t much care if motives are pure or impure; results are what matters. It may have taken the GOP until Tuesday to learn that threatening mass deportation tends to alienate Hispanic voters, but at least they’re learning. And their new political calculus could result in positive reform.

Immigration is not the only issue where the GOP is evolving in the right direction. Aside from Rick Santorum and a few others (and even he’s coming around on immigration!), the party took great pains to de-emphasize its traditional stances on social issues such as same-sex marriage and drug prohibition. Given how those issues fared in a number of states, this was a wise move.

Going forward, it looks like the GOP will continue to restrain its worst impulses. They’ll become politically irrelevant if they don’t. The rising generation of voters is very tolerant on social issues, regardless of party affiliation. This is unlikely to change as they age. No going back now.

Usually I bemoan the fact in a democracy, voters get what they want. But on immigration and many social issues, this is turning out to be a good thing. At the very least, Republicans are becoming a little less noxious than they used to be. They’re certainly becoming a little less embarrassing.

CEI Podcast for November 8, 2012: Election Wrap-Up


Have a listen here.

President Obama has won a second term, and neither the House nor the Senate will change hands. Land-use and Transportation Policy Analyst Marc Scribner explains why the election turned out the way it did, and what the results mean going forward for a variety of issue areas.

The Election Is Over. What Now for Regulation?


The people have spoken: despite dismal approval ratings, the House, Senate, and Presidency will all remain in the same hands. What are the consequences on the regulatory front? In the short run, it means a midnight rush of new rules is coming.

The deluge hasn’t started yet, as only 44 new regulations have been published this week in the Federal Register, a bit below the normal pace. But during the campaign, President Obama decided to postpone the enactment of several controversial rules until after the election. According to National Journal:

Federal agencies are sitting on a pile of major health, environmental, and financial regulations that lobbyists, congressional staffers, and former administration officials say are being held back to avoid providing ammunition to Mitt Romney and other Republican critics.

Now that this ammunition will no longer have electoral consequences, the EPA can move ahead on delayed rules on everything from greenhouse gas emissions to ozone standards. Rules from the health care bill and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill will also likely make themselves known in the weeks to come.

Of course, this would have happened however the election turned out. If Romney had won, the midnight rush might be even more severe. Not only would the delayed rules show up, but agencies would rush to pass as much of the outgoing president’s regulatory agenda as they can before the January 20 handoff. In that case, President Obama’s victory may result in fewer regulations, at least in the short term, than if Romney had won.

The last time the White House switched parties a Bush midnight rush resulted in 3,819 final rules being published in 2008, compared to 3,594 the year before. The 2000 election took place on November 7 of that year. Between then and Bush’s January 20 inauguration, Clinton’s executive branch published an impressive 935 final rules. A full calendar year at that pace would result in 4,675 regulations, nearly 200 more rules than the 4,490 that passed in 2000, and over 500 more than the 4,132 that passed in 2001. The trend is even more pronounced for economically significant rules, going back to at least the Reagan years. So the midnight rush phenomenon is thoroughly bipartisan.

Recall that the reason for midnight rushes in the first place is to avoid voter anger. My point is this: an even better way to avoid voter anger is to pass fewer regulations in the first place.

Obama Wins: One Positive, One Negative

One positive: Romney Derangement Syndrome will disappear shortly, if it hasn’t already.

One negative: four more years of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Obama Wins Electoral College: Potential Partisan Integrity Test?

According to CNN, Obama will win the electoral college vote, though Romney is winning the popular vote.

Suppose this holds in the final results. Then remember the 2000 election, when Bush won the electoral college and lost the popular vote.

We potentially have here a wonderful partisan integrity test. I doubt this will hold, but how revealing of the political commentariat this would be if it did. How many pundits would switch sides on the electoral college’s merits based on their partisan preferences? My guess is that a majority of both sides’ windbags would switch sides almost instantly.

As it is, the House and Senate are projected to remain in GOP and Democratic hands, respectively. Assuming Obama wins, we have absolutely no change.

Inertia wins. The iron law of politics.

Election Day


It’s that wonderful day of the year when the endless stream of room-temperature IQ political ads that has been ruining my enjoyment of televised sports for months will finally, mercifully, stop. There is also an election today.

In the name of transparency, the folks at Reason recently disclosed who many of their staffers and contributors are voting for. It’s a good idea that all media outlets should adopt. So far though, only Slate has followed suit. And it seems like theirs must be one boring office. 29 of their employees are voting for Obama, and two each are voting for Romney, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. One staffer is not voting. Not much diversity there.

Are other media outlets similarly bland? We’ll likely never know, because most newspapers pretend they are objective. They argue that disclosing reporters’ voting preferences undermines that perception of objectivity. The trouble with this perception is that it is inaccurate. Everyone is biased — and that’s fine! News coverage would greatly improve if more outlets dropped the objectivity charade. Transparency is a good thing.

That’s why this blogger is disclosing that I chose not to vote this year. I gave it long and careful thought, and came to that decision a couple weeks ago. The House will likely stay Republican, which is an argument in favor of voting for Obama, since I prefer divided government. And I find I often agree with Gary Johnson. But in the end, I just couldn’t find it in me to vote for either of them.

This despite living in Virginia, a swing state. It’s looking to be a close election, and Virginia’s margin could well be just a few thousand votes. I have one vote.

More to the point, I make my living advocating for policies I believe in, and that has far more impact than one vote. I am hardly a non-participant in the political process. Lines at many local polling places are more than an hour long. All that time spent in line is time not spent publicly advocating for regulatory reform, and trying to win over policymakers and the public. If I had voted today, I would almost certainly have less impact, not more.

While math and opportunity costs argue against voting, there is a very strong argument in favor of it. It’s called expressive voting. When people pull the lever, they are expressing themselves. They are participating in democracy, and affirming their beliefs. This is a wonderful thing. For all intents and purposes, your vote may not count. But for many people, expressive voting trumps that. It just feels good.

Everyone is different, which is one of the things I like about the human race. Some people place a high value on expressive voting; hence all those little stickers people are wearing today. Other people, like this writer, place a lower value on expressive voting, or have other outlets for the same impulse. And we’re all correct.

This 2012 non-voter does not look down people who did vote. I made a careful and informed decision that I believe is the right one for me. If you did the same, then you have my respect, no matter what that decision was. All I ask is that same respect in return.

Sadly, that basic respect is a rare commodity. Contrary to what many people are saying today, I have not forfeited my right to complain. I am not unpatriotic. I am not, in the words of at least one Facebooker, a “shitty American.” I have decided what I think is right for me. Let everyone do the same. And leave it at that, please.

All that said, I am looking forward to seeing the results tonight. It really could go either way. The only sure thing about this election is that George W. Bush’s policies will win a fourth term. And in that sense, everyone will lose today.

CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week in Regulation


This week in the world of regulation:

  • In a Hurricane Sandy-shortened work week, 60 new final rules were published, down from 77 the previous week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every 2 hours and 48 minutes — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  • All in all, 3,195 final rules have been published in the Federal Register this year.
  • If this keeps up, the total tally for 2012 will be 3,809 new rules.
  • Last week, 901 new pages were added to the 2012 Federal Register, for a total of 66,257 pages.
  • At its current pace, the 2012 Federal Register will run 78,504 pages.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. The 42 such rules published so far in 2012 have compliance costs of at least $23.9 billion. Two of the rules do not have cost estimates, and a third cost estimate does not give a total annual cost. We assume that rules lacking this basic transparency measure cost the bare minimum of $100 million per year. The true cost is almost certainly higher.
  • One economically significant rule was published last week.
  • So far, 307 final rules that meet the broader definition of “significant” have been published in 2012.
  • So far this year, exactly 600 final rules affect small business; 85 of them are significant rules.

Highlights from final rules published last week:

For more data, go to TenThousandCommandments.com.

CEI Podcast for November 1, 2012: Is Google’s Search Dominance Permanent?


Have a listen here.

Associate Director of Technology Studies Ryan Radia argues that Google’s current dominance as an Internet search engine service is a fragile thing. Creative destruction is everywhere, and its onset cannot be predicted. As soon as something better comes out, consumers will flock to it in droves. Calls for antitrust enforcement should not be answered.