The White House pooh-poohs higher premiums by saying that the insured won’t pay the full amount; subsidies will cover part of it. But subsidies come from tax dollars and from borrowing to increase the national debt.
Who wants a dishwasher that doesn’t work but costs more than ever?
The Department of Energy is completing a second round of regulations dictating the machines must use less water and less energy.
Prices already rose by $44 a unit with their first round in 2012. But add another $99 to the price from the 2015 regulations, spurred by President Obama’s call to “save the planet” by restricting use of energy. These are the government’s official cost projections; industry says the costs are even higher.
No, you won’t get the money back from lower electric bills. Manufacturers say that would take 20 years–twice as long as most dishwashers last.
The kicker: The new units don’t get things clean because water use is restricted and the energy limits prevent use of high-velocity sprayers.
Dishwashers could use 6.5 gallons per cycle until 2012, when that limit was lowered to 5 gallons. The 2015 Department of Energy (DOE) rules will drop that to 3.1 gallons per cycle.
The 2012 regulation restricted energy usage to 307 kWh (kiloWatthour) per year for a standard washer. The 2015 proposal lowers that to 234 kWh/year.
Manufacturers expect to lay off workers, because who wants to pay more and get less. Similar energy restrictions are in the works for other appliances.
Get ready to work harder as you wash dishes by hand. Unless you have a willing pet to lick your plates clean.
President Obama loves to say that he’s issued fewer regulations than George W. Bush did. Obama does that to distract and confuse people because it’s both true and extremely misleading. It’s the cost that counts — the economic impact — far more than the number of regulations.
An illustration: One person may have twice as many coins as another person, but if they have four pennies and the other person has two quarters, then the smaller number of coins is clearly more significant.
Obama’s smaller number of regulations have a far bigger and more negative impact on our economy than Bush’s regulations did. As FactCheck.org noted early in 2012, “It’s true (barely) that Bush issued more new regulations than Obama at the same point in their presidencies — but Obama didn’t mention that his cost more.“
America’s welfare state keeps growing because Congress allows bureaucrats to expand programs, immune from accountability to voters.
The latest proposal would give free Internet service to tens of millions of people. It would be done by the nonelected commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission.
Millions of people already get free phones through the fraud-ridden FCC program nicknamed “Obamaphones.” Expanding this to the Internet (Call it “Obamanet?”) could add tens of millions of people, thanks to FCC’s loose eligibility criteria.
It’s only just begun. American households are suffering skyrocketing electricity costs thanks to President Barack Obama’s agenda. Already the average household pays an extra $120 a year.
But the worst is yet to come.
Thanks to EPA regulations that have been announced, the U.S. will lose 9 percent of our ability to generate electricity by the year 2030, even while population grows by 54 million people. That is 116% of the current population trying to get by on 91% of our current power.
Supply-and-demand dictates electric rates will climb higher and higher.
What does Obama suggest we do? Spend thousands of dollars per household to buy more energy-efficient appliances. You’ll pay more upfront but then you’ll use fewer kilowatts. But your utility bills will still climb because the cost per kilowatt-hour will be much higher.
President Obama is doing for the Internet what he did for health care: making things worse. His slogan should be “Change you can deceive in.”
Even beyond so-called “Net Neutrality” (which is NOT neutrality) and even beyond censoring the web, Obama’s Internet overhaul includes extortion and shakedowns. Businesses and individuals defend themselves against domains like .sucks, which debuts in June. Obama adds cost, confusion and cronyism to the Internet, just as Obamacare does to our health care system. Obama’s giving away U.S. control of the Internet is on par with Jimmy Carter’s giving away America’s control of the Panama Canal.
Now finding websites will become more complicated. Instead of remembering whether a site ends with .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov or some other “top-level domain,” users now will face over 1,000 extensions, with another 1,000 on the way.
Runaway regulations from the executive branch, aided by vast delegations of power issued by Congress–these are the trends that burden Americans, outlined in the 9th annual “Red Tape Rising” report by The Heritage Foundation.
Highlights of the report by Heritage scholars James Gattuso and Diane Katz include:
The number and cost of government regulations kept climbing in 2014. 27 new major rules in 2014 pushed Obama’s six-year total to 184, “with scores of other rules in the pipeline.” These 184 alone have an annual cost of at least $80-billion
“President Barack Obama has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to act by regulatory fiat instead of executing laws as passed by Congress.”
But “A great deal of the excessive regulation in the past six years is the result of Congress’ granting broad powers to agencies through passage of vast and vaguely worded legislation.”
The result? “Intensifying Washington’s control over the economy and Americans’ lives.”
In 2013, President Obama was given the “Lie of The Year” award for claiming that Obamacare would allow people to keep their current health insurance. Now a new statement might win Obama that award for 2014 as well: Obama claims that his new Environmental Protection Agency regulations will lower people’s electric bills.
On June 2, he stated, “Your electricity bills will shrink as these standards spur investment in energy efficiency, cutting waste and, ultimately, we’re going to be saving money for homes and for businesses.”
Yet in 2008 he admitted his agenda was to make electricity rates “skyrocket,” supposedly to save the planet. And the EPA’s own analysis predicts their regulations will raise electric rates an extra 6% to 24% by 2020.
Careful research reveals the carefully-contrived statements Obama is using to leave consumers a totally false impression about the impact of the new EPA regulations.
President Obama’s latest EPA plans give America only bad choices which all will cause electric bills to skyrocket.
While claiming states will have “fexibility” to reduce carbon dioxide, the limited options are all bad. It’s like a classic Three Stooges routine: The Stooges are given a choice either of being burned at the stake or beheaded. Curly chooses the fire. “After all,” he says, “a hot steak is better than a cold chop.”
The Environmental Protection Agency isn’t offering anything better. They are not targeting something tangible, dirty or visible like soot or carbon particles, which is the purpose of the Clean Air Act. Instead, they want to reduce carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant. CO2 is invisible whether it’s coming out of a smokestack, exhaled from your lungs, or released by plants at night. Obama’s justification is all about supposed “global warming” and “climate change,” not about pollution.
The food fight over student lunches is personal for First Lady Michelle Obama, and personal for millions of upset school children and their families.
She has told us, “My most important title is mom-in-chief,” and “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.” The First Lady’s attitude is reinforced by the regulators at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, overseeing the federal School Lunch Program. They follow her bidding on extreme makeover of meals, but 1.6-million students have dropped out of the program rather than accept the new menus.
It is not the Constitution that lets President Obama dictate immigration policy. His power comes from authority that Congress has delegated to the executive branch and which it could take away.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee proposes changing the law so that President Obama’s bureaucrats no longer have exclusive power to enforce immigration laws. Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration laws would mean less if the nation’s 1-million state and local law officers shared enforcement authority with federal officials, says Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R, VA). That would undo a Supreme Court ruling that was based on current law.
The annual White House Easter Egg Roll has been politicized to re-educate children and parents. Sorry, Peter Cottontail; your event has been kidnapped. And apologies to the churches.
The 30,000 guests were told, “In addition to all of the fun, the day’s activities will encourage children to lead healthy, active lives in support of the First Lady’s Let’s Move! Initiative.” In 2013, Michelle Obama proclaimed the event’s purpose was is “to celebrate nutrition and activity” and “learn about making tasty, healthy food.”
Her philosophy? “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.” That’s what the First Lady proclaimed when her husband signed the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. That act has sparked student protests across the country for changing the school lunch program to promote items that students refuse to eat. And down-sized portions.
With support from many African-American leaders, President Obama’s appointees to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) are shifting resources–both manpower and budget funds–to enforce new legal rights for the same-sex and transgender movements. Plus to enforce rights claimed by illegal immigrants.
Last weekend’s Lincoln Memorial rally, put together by the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, was more rainbow than black. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told the crowd, “Our focus has broadened to include the cause of women, of Latinos, of Asian-Americans, of lesbians, of gays, of people with disabilities.”
This is not make-believe: Government regulation is a growth industry, one of very few in America today.
President Obama often claims he is committed to reforming regulations. But the facts tell a different story. His claims belong in Never-Never Land.
Obama’s minions claim their rule changes will “save U.S. businesses billions of dollars in regulatory burdens.” Yet analysis by the Small Business Administration estimated the cost of compliance with federal regulation (as of 2008) to be a staggering $1.75 trillion annually.
Obama uses endless ploys to deny the facts about his non-imaginary red tape friends.
Due to runaway red tape, companies simply abandon projects that would generate jobs and growth if it weren’t for regulations.