Obama 2012 regulations imposed more costs on US economy than total regulations of first terms of Pres. Bush and Clinton combined (8 yrs.)-OMB figures

.
2012 regulations added about $19 billion in costs to the taxpayer per OMB figures. 96% of the costs (55%+41%), $18.24 billion, were 'climate' related. 
---------------------------------
4/22/13, "Costs of New Regulations issued in 2012 Dwarf those of Previous Years, according to OMB Report," Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University 
(pdf of article contains numerous links)

 







"The Office of Management and Budget quietly released its draft 2013 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Regulations on Friday, April 19, covering regulatory activity through the end (September 30) of fiscal year 2012. Recall that, as the presidential election approached, the White House was widely reported to be restraining the regulatory agencies out of concern for the state of the economy. Now that the results are tallied, however, there is little evidence of restraint.
.

By the administration’s own estimates, the rules it issued in FY2012 alone imposed more costs on the economy than all the rules issued during the entire first terms of Presidents Bush and Clinton, combined.

The report does not highlight this fact, but instead points to the enormous regulatory benefits that it claims will flow from these rules. The benefits are very different in character from the costs, however. Of the reported benefits of regulations issued in FY 2012, over 95% derive from two assumptions that many scholars find questionable:
.

1) that reductions in emissions of fine particles will cause large reductions in premature mortality (55% of total benefits); and
.

 2) that depriving consumers of their preferred choices in purchasing

appliances and cars will ultimately make them better off, because the fuel

savings are worth more–to the consumers themselves–than consumers realize

(contributing 41% of the total benefits).
.

In making comparisons of net benefits across different administrations, the OMB report uses

another questionable technique. If a court has vacated a rule issued by a previous administration, the report removes the net benefits from that administration’s tally.
.

Yet it continues to include in the Obama administration’s tally the

cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR) vacated in August

2012. With claimed net benefits of almost $40 billion per year, 

selectively taking credit for the vacated CSAPR clearly affects the net benefits comparison.

This seems particularly inappropriate because, as a result of the vacatur, the EPA is actually enforcing the Bush administration’s (also overturned, but not vacated) clean air interstate rule (CAIR)."

-------------------------------

Chart above, US gov. data through 2012, "Source: OMB 2013 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations Appendix tables D-1–D-3. OMB reports data by fiscal years except the first year of each president’s term, which begins on January 20th of that year." Via Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University.

================================

Regulations that cause "income transfers" are called "transfer rules:" 

from p. 22 of report: "Twenty-two of the rules were “transfer rules”—rules that primarily caused income transfers, usually from taxpayers to program beneficiaries....

We recognize that markets embed distortions and that the transfers are not lump-sum. Hence,

transfer rules may create social benefits or costs; for example, they may impose

real costs on society to the extent that they cause people

to change behavior,

either by directly prohibiting or mandating certain activities, or, more often, by altering prices and costs."...

.
====================================

"The vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats....The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined."

5/24/13, "The rise of the fourth branch of government," Washington Post, Jonathan Turley, opinion

"The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined. "...


======================================

4/23/13, "Obama’s Regulatory Burden," Washington Free Beacon

"President Barack Obama has claimed to reduce the regulatory burden on Americans. Obama said during the 2012 State of the Union Address he had ”approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.”
.
Obama also claimed in 2011:

What I have done—and this is unprecedented … is I’ve said to each agency don’t just look at current regulations—or don’t just look at future regulations … let’s go backwards and look at regulation that are already on the books, and if they don’t make sense, let’s get rid of them.

As the 2013 draft of the regulatory burden makes clear, 2009 was the only year during the Obama administration that the costs of regulation were less than under Bush or Clinton."