Obama administration pretends that they are cutting government regulations

So you impose huge new regulatory burdens and then, to much fanfare, you have a small cut once you realize that voters are turning on you for all the new regulations. This list doesn't even mention all the new environmental regulations. From Fox News:

. . . "The administration's findings and determinations, on their own, are a worthy effort at making technical changes to the regulatory process, but the results of this lookback will not have a material impact on the real regulatory burdens facing businesses today," said Bill Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president of environment, tech, and regulatory affairs.

Chamber officials note The Affordable Care Act created 159 new agencies, commissions, panels, and other bodies. The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform has 447 new rules that either required or suggested.

"Well I appreciate the fact that President Obama has directed the administration to address regulator overreach, but frankly I think this is almost the fox in the hen house," said Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.). "When we look at the bigger picture, there's a huge encroachment in the private sector and our communities with unfunded mandates and cost of regulations. It was 1.75 trillion last year with over 4000 regulations in the queue ready to implement this year." . . .

But Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Tuesday that the facts speak for themselves, noting that the administration proposed $9.5 billion in new government regulations in just July. So the proposed savings of this week's initiative -- $10 billion over five years -- could essentially be wiped out in only one month.

"The administration just unveiled a plan for publicity - - not a plan for [economic] growth," said Barrasso, adding that "small businesses across the country are overwhelmed by the hundreds of new regulations stemming from the President's health care law, financial reform bill" and the Environmental Protection Agency. . . .

UPDATE: While the Obama administration is releasing these cost savings with big fanfare, they aren't making public the costs of other new regulations. House Speaker John Boehner asks Obama to reveal the costs of the new regulations that are being enacted. From Politico:

In a letter that will be sent to President Barack Obama on Friday, House Speaker John Boehner charges that planned regulations have jumped nearly 15 percent over last year and he calls on the administration to calculate and publicize their economic impact.

“This year the Administration’s current regulatory agenda identifies 219 planned new regulations that have estimated annual costs in excess of $100 million each. That’s almost a 15 percent increase over last year, and appears to contradict public suggestions by the Administration this week that the regulatory burden on American job creators is being scaled back,” Boehner writes.
“I was startled to learn that the EPA estimates that at least one of its proposed rules will cost our economy as much as $90 billion per year. The Administration has not disclosed how many of the other 218 planned rules will cost more than $1 billion, nor identified these rules,” he added.

Boehner, who argues that the White House’s rhetoric about eliminating regulatory burdens is at odds with the reality of its regulatory wish list, wants the president to identify all regulations that would cause an impact on the economy of $1 billion or more.

It is the opening salvo in a battle over the administration’s ability to implement a wide range of policies without pushing new laws through Congress. While Congress has the power to override new regulations through the legislative process, it is inconceivable that the Democratic-led Senate would join the House in trying to thwart the president’s agenda. . . .
In his letter to Obama, Boehner says he wants the data on costly regulations by the time Congress returns to session next month so that it is “available as the House considers legislation requiring a congressional review . . . ."

Even Musicians are being scared by how the Obama administration is enforcing environmental rules.

Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. The Feds are keeping mum, but in a statement yesterday Gibson's chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, defended his company's manufacturing policies, accusing the Justice Department of bullying the company. "The wood the government seized Wednesday is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier," he said, suggesting the Feds are using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle. . . .

The question in the first raid seemed to be whether Gibson had been buying illegally harvested hardwoods from protected forests, such as the Madagascar ebony that makes for such lovely fretboards. . . . .

It isn't just Gibson that is sweating. Musicians who play vintage guitars and other instruments made of environmentally protected materials are worried the authorities may be coming for them next.

If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution. . . .

It's not enough to know that the body of your old guitar is made of spruce and maple: What's the bridge made of? If it's ebony, do you have the paperwork to show when and where that wood was harvested and when and where it was made into a bridge? Is the nut holding the strings at the guitar's headstock bone, or could it be ivory? "Even if you have no knowledge—despite Herculean efforts to obtain it—that some piece of your guitar, no matter how small, was obtained illegally, you lose your guitar forever," Prof. Thomas has written. "Oh, and you'll be fined $250 for that false (or missing) information in your Lacey Act Import Declaration." . . .

Seven new EPA and transportation regulations would each cost at least $1 billion per year.

President Barack Obama says his administration is considering seven new government regulations that would cost the economy more than $1 billion each a year, a tally Republicans will pounce on to argue that Congress needs the power to approve costly government rules.

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Obama lists four proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules and three Transportation Department rules estimated to cost in excess of $1 billion. One of the proposed EPA rules – an update to the health-based standard for smog – is estimated to cost the economy between $19 billion and $90 billion. . . .

UPDATE: Cass Sunstein, Obama's administrator of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, denies that there are a lot of new regulations. Cass published this defense of Obama's regulations.

From Day One, President Obama has adopted a balanced approach to regulation, protecting the health and safety of the American people while taking steps to eliminate burdensome requirements that hinder economic growth and job creation. Underlying this approach is a belief that a smart, effective regulatory system depends on careful analysis of both costs and benefits and on an informed public discussion.
Unfortunately, some extravagant or false claims have arisen in recent months. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced recently that it is starting "a series of road show events" to complain about what it called a "regulatory tsunami." The administration agrees that unjustified regulatory costs should be cut. But there has been no such tsunami, and it is important to set the record straight. . . .
the Obama administration has initiated an unprecedented process for streamlining and eliminating regulations, with the goal of reducing unjustified costs. We are taking immediate steps to eliminate millions of hours in annual paperwork burdens for large and small businesses and more than $1 billion in annual regulatory costs. Hundreds of reform proposals from 30 agencies, now out for public scrutiny, promise to deliver billions of dollars in additional savings. . . .