Friday, December 2, 2011

Obama Set to Veto Pro-Job Deregulation Bill

One blog said that it is laughable to believe that Harry Reid would even allow this bill to come to a vote in the Senate. That is the roadblock the Republican House has had for all the deficit reduction and jobs bills they have passed in the last year. Too bad we never hear the real facts as to who is holding up progress on the job front.

Yesterday, President Obama spoke at Scranton High School about his roundly-unsupported American Jobs Act, during which he branded himself a pro-jobs tax cutter.

I know, I know. Contain your laugher.

He spent a great deal of time blaming Republicans for his bill's failure, and appealing to voters for support of his proposed millionaires' tax, which would cover the costs of extending the payroll tax cut. In addition to his rhetorical staples -- "Pass this bill" and "fair share" among them -- he claimed to be fighting for small businesses and the middle class:

So there he is, America. The economy's number one cheerleader. Why, then, is he set to veto bill intended to save jobs from overregulation?

In an op/ed today, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) gives a rundown of three bills coming before the House this week that are intended to hold regulatory agencies more accountable for the measures they pass. The goal is to ensure that businesses aren't tied up trying to figure out how to comply with myriad federal regulations, and can instead focus on growth.

The REINS [Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny] Act requires Congress to take an up-or-down vote to approve regulations that have an economic impact of $100 million or more before they can be imposed on the American people.

The REINS Act enables the American people to hold their elected representatives in Congress accountable for the most burdensome regulations.

The Regulatory Accountability Act is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that ensures regulations are necessary and cost-effective. It requires agencies to do a better job of determining whether new regulations are even needed. And when regulations are necessary, the bill requires agencies to adopt the lowest-cost alternative to achieve the goals.

The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act requires agencies to identify the costs new regulations could impose on small businesses and to write the regulations in ways that reduce those costs. It also gives small businesses more opportunities to be heard as regulations are written and forces agencies to look at ways to cut the costs of regulations already on the books.

Granted, it's not wholly surprising to learn that the president is opposed to measures that would curb regulation-happy agencies such as the NLRB -- after all, that's hardly the politically expedient option for a man who believes government is the solution to everything. Still, though, it bears note that once again, his pro-jobs rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. And so, too, is his anti-Washington schtick.

In that same speech in Scranton, he said, "This cannot be about who wins and loses in Washington. This is about delivering a win for the American people. That’s what this is about."

Except, apparently, when it's he and his regulatory agencies who lose. In that case, veto away.

Read full Townhall article here.

No comments:

Post a Comment