REINS Is Literally "Job-Killing"

Oh, this is hilarious.

Here you have a group of individuals who believe regulation is "job killing".  Well, when you are dealing with elected persons who lack administrative sophistication, you must assume their advice comes from their advocates... oops, I mean lobbyists, the same individuals who would significantly benefit from less regulatory mandates.

See, it goes like this, even though all three branches of government have their input into any administrative regulation that comes down, it is actually "job killing" because most of the local governments would not be in operation if they had to be compliant, let alone have to be compliant wtih civil rights policies.  This rings with even more truth when you understand that these "economically significant" new rules that may come down are dealing with privatization, out-sourced by state governments.

If one possessed basic understanding of the legislative process, one would know there currently exists multiple forms of input from the people regarding the formation and adoption of regulations beyond the sole elected official.


There is the Federal Registry which allows for public content.  The elected official who is concerned with having a voice should assist and engage his/her constituents in the opportunities to submit historical comments into federal record.

Then, there is always the role of the elected official to, again, assist and engage his/her constituents on how to contact the administrators of each agency to voice concerns and to provide critical input in the development of any policies.

Alas, it seems here the elected official would prefer to bog down the legislative process in minutia of applying a fifth layer of approval for policies which would virtually shut down governmental functions.  Grandstanding at its finest.

Now, let's examine the counterfactual of a "so-called" removal of regulatory policies.  Let's take EPA for example.

You remove regulation of EPA, people become sick and die.  Sick people tend to cause a soaring costs to overall health care.  Sick people can not work nor be productive to society which means that they will not be able to afford individual private insurance and seek the single payer programs.  The moral hazard kicks in to increase the cost of private insurance placing more individuals at risk of loosing their medical coverage.

As the insurance companies financially benefit with an increase in profits by cherry picking who will be insured, there will be a need to further reduce its work force with fewer clients.
Dead people do not work nor pay taxes.

Now, that is what I call "job-killing", literally.

Beverly Tran
An Original Source

Michigan Senate Resolution To Memorialize Congress For Moritoria On Regulation With REINS Act 2011

States Cry Foul With Health Care Mandate

States Cry Foul With Health Care Mandate

Ever wanted to know why there was so much opposition to the health care reform?  Well here it is.

It's called fraud.  Yes, contained within health care reform is also regulation.  Here is a great little rant from the State of Florida.  Why are they ranting?  It is because they are not compliant.

Florida is so bad, the U.S. Department of Justice teamed up with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources to establish the Health Care Fraud Enforcement Task Force (H.E.A.T.)  The worst part of the levels of health care fraud in these states that are crying the unconstitutional foul is that the levels of Medicaid fraud, once the federal moritoria on the suspension of the rules are lifted, will make Medicare pail in comparison to the ugly beast called Medicaid fraud.

U.S. DHHS OIG and DOJ Health Care Fraud Prevention Enforcement Team
The lack of Medicaid and Medicare regulation in the states will substantially cut the federal funding to their programs.  In essence, coming into federally funded, mandated compliance to end Medicaid and Medicare fraud will kill jobs because these fraud scheme, racketeering operations will be shut down.Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services response to Senator Grassley's inquiry on...

REINS Drops The Reins On Medicaid Fraud

REINS Drops The Reins On Medicaid Fraud

Oh, this is hilarious.

Here you have a group of individuals who believe regulation is "job killing".  Well, when you are dealing with elected persons who lack administrative sophistication, you must assume their advice comes from their advocates... oops, I mean lobbyists, the same individuals who would significantly benefit from less regulatory mandates.

See, it goes like this, even though all three branches of government have their input into any administrative regulation that comes down, it is actually "job killing" because most of the local governments would not be in operation if they had to be compliant, let alone have to be compliant wtih civil rights policies.  This rings with even more truth when you understand that these "economically significant" new rules that may come down are dealing with privatization, out-sourced by state governments.

Now, let's put this into a more familiar perspective.

States get their Medicaid funding.  Then the contracts to provide child welfare services are privatized.  Even though there is already a moritoria on Medicaid regulation ... oh hell, just watch the video!

Taking aim at federal rules

U.S. Rep. Daniel Webster is among those who want to ease the red tape that often accompanies federal money

In recent weeks, Marion County officials have complained about being hog-tied by the strings that accompany some federal money they receive.

U.S. Rep. Daniel Webster wants to help them by cutting the fiscal ties that bind.

During a recent visit to Ocala, the newly elected Republican said he supports legislation that would empower Congress to approve "major" rules made by federal regulatory agencies deemed to have a significant impact on the overall economy.

The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act — or REINS Act — defines a "major rule" as one that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more — or one that causes a "major increase" in costs for consumers, individual industries or government agencies.

Federal grants and awards often have extensive requirements for compliance and reporting that lead local officials to rethink whether they should have even accepted the funding in the first place.

In recent weeks, for example, the County Commission has questioned staff spending under a federal housing grant designed to stabilize neighborhoods with large numbers of foreclosures.

The program, created in 2008 under the $800 billion Housing and Economic Recovery Act, allows the county to buy, refurbish and resell selected properties as a way to slow the spread of blight in emptying communities.

The county initially received $6.3 million toward the effort and is considering whether to take an additional $4.6 million.

Last week, the commission agreed to approach the Federal Aviation Administration to find out whether a ban on aerobatic planes and pilots at the Dunnellon-Marion County Airport would force the county to forfeit at least $2.5 million in federal grants that fund improvements at the facility.

Marion County Public Schools, meanwhile, once devoted an entire department tomonitoring federally funded programs and the attached requirements to ensure compliance with Washington's demands.

Webster, in a recent interview, said there must be a way to give local governments more latitude in deciding how those funds can be spent and still comply with the goals set by federal regulators.

He noted that President Barack Obama has even said as much.

In mid January, Obama issued an executive order calling for a "government-wide" review of federal regulations that hamper job creation and adversely affect economic growth.

"We can aid our communities by getting rid of federal strings," said Webster, whose district includes much of eastern Marion, including parts of Ocala and Silver Springs Shores.

Describing these requirements as often "duplicative and oppressive," the freshman congressman, who is also a 28-year veteran of the Florida Legislature, indicated that he believes these regulations eventually catch up to local governments as they do local businesses.

"These are the items I want to dispose of," he added. "Part of Congress' duty is to oversee, and they have not done that."

He also thought Congress should start to write more specific laws to curtail the ambiguity that executive-branch agencies exploit in the absence of concrete direction from lawmakers.

"People and states have had it with the federal government telling them what to do. This just balances what's there," Webster said.

The REINS Act was introduced in January by Rep. Geoff Davis, a Kentucky Republican. The two other Republican congressmen who represent parts of Marion County — Cliff Stearns of Ocala and Richard Nugent of Brooskville — support the measure. In fact, Stearns is a cosponsor and Nugent has asked to be one.

The fourth member of Marion's congressional delegation, Democrat Corrine Brown, is still studying the legislation and has not taken a formal stand.

Not everyone thinks the bill is so great. "While the legislation...may be well-intentioned, it simply misses the mark," U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) told a House subcommittee last month.

He went on to summarize the critics' position:

For starters, the bill overreaches. Congress may make laws, he said, but the REINS Act "unduly trammels on executive authority."

Second, the REINS cure does not target the disease of over regulation.

"Some might argue that there is a legitimate need to strike a balance between protecting the safety and health of all Americans (through federal rules and requirements) and fostering economic growth, job creation and competitiveness," Conyers said.

But REINS "will distort the rulemaking process" and "hamper the implementation of evert single law on the books!" he said.

"By changing the presumption in the Congressional Review Act, and requiring affirmative congressional approval (as opposed to disapproval) for all major rules, this act will serve as a chokehold, and stifle regulatory review, which I am afraid is the real intent of this legislation."

Finally, he said, REINS is based on incomplete economic analysis and "solely addresses the costs of regulation, while failing to account for the tremendous cost benefits that regulations yield."
Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2009