Part of an article by Diane Katz.

As the new Congress assembles, many legislators are considering how to lessen the regulatory burden on Americans. President Obama, too, now says that he wants to root out unnecessary government rules. With regulatory costs at record levels, relief is sorely needed. But it is not enough to talk about fewer regulations. Policymakers must critically review specific rules and identify those that should be abolished. This paper details 20 unnecessary and harmful regulations that should be eliminated now.

Americans are besieged by regulations. At every level, government intrudes into citizens’ lives with a torrent of do’s and don’ts that place an unsustainable burden on the economy and erode Americans’ most fundamental freedoms. In fiscal year (FY) 2010 alone, the Obama Administration unleashed regulations that will cost more than $26.5 billion annually,1 and many more are on the way. These rules cover a broad swath of American life: Fifteen of the 43 major rules issued during the fiscal year arose from the regulatory crackdown on the finance sector in the Wall Street Reform and Protection Act (Dodd–Frank) and similar lawmaking. Another five stemmed from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) adopted by Congress in early 2010. Ten others came from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the first mandatory reporting of “greenhouse gas” emissions and $10.8 billion in new automotive fuel economy standards.

In total, regulations now extract some $1.75 trillion a year from the economy, according to a recent report from the federal government’s own Small Business Administration.2 Little different from taxes, regulations raise the price of almost every product and service, while also inhibiting the capital investment and job creation needed to keep the nation’s economy strong.12 This regulatory tide must be reversed. Policymakers should not just prevent harmful new regulations, but must repeal costly and unnecessary rules already on the books. Such action can be undertaken by the new Congress, or by regulators themselves. In fact, President Obama recently pledged a government-wide review of rules to determine which should be “modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.”

· Regulatory burdens are hindering job growth, investment, and innovation, while eroding fundamental freedoms in America.

· Policymakers in Congress and the executive branch must do more than prevent harmful new regulations from taking effect. They must also eliminate unnecessary rules already on the books.

· It is easy to talk about abolishing harmful rules, but success requires identifying specific rules to abolish.

8. Phase-Out of Incandescent Light Bulbs

Discussion. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 imposed stringent efficiency requirements that effectively phase out the incandescent bulbs14 on which the world has relied for more than a century.

Proponents of the phase-out tout the supposed energy-saving attributes of costly compact fluorescent bulbs. LED lighting is also gaining favor. But rather than eliminate incandescent bulbs, consumers ought to have a choice among all types of lighting the market has to offer. Consumer choice and competition will ultimately determine the type of bulbs best suited for various applications and family budgets.

The light bulb regulation is also a job-killer, leading to the closure of the last American light bulb factory.

15 (The vast majority of fluorescent bulbs are

manufactured in China.)

Recommended Action. Repeal. Light bulb regulation is an unnecessary dictate that raises lighting costs and limits consumer choice.

Relevant Reading.

· Nicolas D. Loris, “Government’s Light Bulb Ban

Is Just Plain Destructive,” Heritage Foundation

WebMemo No. 3024, September 23, 2010, at

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/ Governments-Light-Bulb-Ban-Is-Just-Plain-Destructive.

· Deroy Murdock, “The All-American Light Bulb

Dims as Freedom Flickers,” National Review

Online, July 2, 2010, at http://www.nationalreview.

com/articles/243383/all-american-light-bulbdims-

freedom-flickers-deroy-murdock (January

19, 2011).

9. Appliance Energy Standards

Discussion. During the past three decades, Congress has imposed a multitude of energy efficiency standards16 for a host of appliances, including:

· Battery chargers and external power supplies

· Ceiling fans and ceiling-fan light kits

· Central air conditioners and heat pumps

· Clothes washers and dryers

· Cooking products

· Dehumidifiers

· Direct heating equipment

· Dishwashers

· Furnace fans

· Furnaces and boilers

· Fluorescent and incandescent lamps

· Fluorescent lamp ballasts

· Plumbing products

· Pool heaters

· Refrigerators and freezers

· Air conditioners

· Torchieres

· Water heaters

In effect, efficiency standards allow the government to control how Americans clean their clothes, cook their food, wash their dishes, and light, heat, and cool their homes. No longer do consumers exercise the freedom to balance appliance performance against cost. In many cases, the efficiency standards increase the price of appliances by more than consumers will recoup from energy savings.17 Taxpayers also pay heavily through tax credits provided to manufacturers for producing energyefficient appliances. Depending on the efficiency of the model and the date of manufacture, dishwasher manufacturers can claim a tax credit of $45 to $75 for every new unit.18 The credit for residential or commercial clothes washers ranges from $75 to $250 per unit, and for refrigerators from $50 to $200 per unit.

It is also worth noting that consumers actually increase energy consumption when the cost of using electricity declines (i.e., greater efficiency). And, by forcing R&D to focus on energy efficiency, investment in other product innovations suffers. Recommended Action. Repeal. Energy efficiency standards increase appliance costs and reduce consumer choice.

Relevant Reading.

· Nicolas Loris, “Today’s Calamity: Energy Efficiency is Good—Except When It’s Not,” Heritage Foundation Foundry blog, September 3, 2009, at http://blog.heritage.org/?p=14085.

· Ben Lieberman, “An Annoying Regulation for Every

Room in the House,” OpenMarket.org, September

24, 2010, at http://www.openmarket.org/2010/

09/24/an-annoying-regulation-for-every-room-inthe-

house (January 19, 2011).

11. The EPA Endangerment Finding

Discussion. The basis for the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide is the agency’s “finding”24 that so-called greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” actionable under the Clean Air Act. In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such gases do fall under agency purview and within the scope of the act—legislative history to the contrary.

The EPA has acknowledged25 that the endangerment finding and concomitant regulations will, for the first time, impose costly requirements on millions of businesses and other “facilities,” including apartment buildings, office buildings, even churches. Farmers also will be entangled in the costly regulations. Overall, cumulative gross domestic product losses could reach nearly $7 trillion by 2029, and annual job losses could exceed 800,000 in several years.26 Aside from being costly, the “finding” is factually wrong. There is no scientific consensus on the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and significant evidence to the contrary exists. The agency’s endangerment “finding” is all the more suspect given evidence of alleged fraud and deception in the very source documents the agency relied upon to reach its conclusions.27 Recommended Action. Rescind. Congress should prohibit the EPA (or any other agency) from regulating carbon dioxide (or other so-called greenhouse gases). Pending that step, lawmakers should withhold any and all funding related to such regulations, and prohibit expenditures on the same.

Relevant Reading.

· Nicolas D. Loris, “How the ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Global Warming Affects American Business—and Consumers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder

No. 2479, October 26, 2010, at

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/ how-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warmingaffects-american-business-and-consumers.

· David W. Kreutzer and Karen A. Campbell,

“CO2-Emission Cuts: The Economic Costs of the

EPA’s ANPR Regulations.” Heritage Foundation

Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA08-10,

October 29, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/ Research/Reports/2008/10/CO2-Emission-Cuts-The-Economic-Costs-of-the-EPAs-ANPR-Regulations.

Rolling Back Red Tape:

20 Regulations to Eliminate

By Diane Katz at Heritage.org

You can read the complete list by going to the above site.

This is the year 2002:

This is yesterday,

from Al Gore's site:

An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM

Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:
“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”
“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”
Al Gore.

Yes they always want to have it both ways, the spin is truly amazing.

Yet, I believe that I will stick with the answer "God is in charge of the weather".