Regulation Nation: New study finds Obama’s regs cost $46 billion a year

Quote from larrymoencurly : Where was the government regulation or regulatory authority of that valve, the concrete, and the overall construction of the rig, something similar to the NRC's authority for nuclear reactors or the FAA's for aircraft?

Quote from Radeck : red herring...124nic8's claim was that the regulators were co-opted, without presenting any proof or documentation thereof...do you have any?

You'd have a point if I had mentioned only regulatory authority, rather than also regulation.

Quote from Radeck : AFAIK the regulations state there needs to be a safety shut-off valve...there was one...the fact that it failed does not constitute proof that the regulators were co-opted as claimed by 124nic8

And not that the valve be in good condition and had earlier passed testing?

Quote from ASimpleMan : Here's what I'm talking about: http://www.heritage.org/research/...-year-mark Looking through what you posted, I couldn't find anything that said $121.5 million. Maybe you can find it, because I sure can't. Either way, we shouldn't have to be speculating where they got these figures if it was actually a well-done study, the citations should be right there.

They got their numbers from the GAO. The EEOC specifically:

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/majrule/d11503r.htm

Quote : EEOC determined that the annual costs of reasonable accommodations attributable to the final rule could range between $60 million and $183 million [Avg. = $121.5 million] depending on the assumptions made about the number of individuals in the labor force whose coverage has been clarified under the final rule and the number of such individuals who will receive a reasonable accommodation.

From the report:

Quote : Methodology Data on the number and cost of regulations are based on rules reported to Congress by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) pursuant to the Congressional Review Act of 1996 and available from the GAO’s Federal Rules Database (http://www.gao.gov/legal/congress...drule.html).

Another regulation that is going to result in great expense or closing of a lot of places:

http://slickdeals.net/f/4065582-T...al-lawyers

Quote from paperboy05 : They got their numbers from the GAO. The EEOC specifically: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/majrule/d11503r.htm From the report:

So they took the mean between $60 million and $183 million. As far as we know, it could be $60 million, but now the Heritage Foundation has speculated that it's going to be more than double that, since we don't have accurate numbers and have to use the mean. Then, they used all the averages and added them up to arrive at the $46 Billion figure. See the problem here? First, they're not using full disclosure that they're using averages, second, when you're compounding averages, your not necessarily going to get an accurate figure, because you also are going to be compounding the percentage of error.

Quote from ASimpleMan : So they took the mean between $60 million and $183 million. As far as we know, it could be $60 million, but now the Heritage Foundation has speculated that it's going to be more than double that, since we don't have accurate numbers and have to use the mean. Then, they used all the averages and added them up to arrive at the $46 Billion figure. See the problem here?

So you would rather then use broad figures? For example the costs could be between $15 Billion and $246 Billion? IMO that would be more confusing then using their current methodology and displaying the totals derived from that.

Quote : First, they're not using full disclosure that they're using averages,

Yes they do, from the report:

Quote from Heritage : Where applicable, a 7 percent discount rate was used. Where a range of values was given by an agency, costs were based on the most likely scenario if so indicated by the agency; otherwise the mid-point value was used. The date of a rule was based, for classification purposes, on the date of publication in the Federal Register. Rules were attributed to particular Administrations based on the Federal Register publication date.

Quote : second, when you're compounding averages, your not necessarily going to get an accurate figure, because you also are going to be compounding the percentage of error.

And while displaying a vague range you don't get an accurate value either

Quote from paperboy05 : So you would rather then use broad figures? For example the costs could be between $15 Billion and $246 Billion? IMO that would be more confusing then using their current methodology and displaying the totals derived from that.

Those would be the accurate figures, yes. Instead of coming out with a report saying:

Quote : "During the first three years of the Obama Administration, 106 new major federal regulations added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years."

It's misleading and not necessarily true. Using the ranges creates an absolutely 100% accurate statement (assuming the numbers from the source are correct), whereas using the averages and adding them up creates a statement that may or may not be true. Furthermore, using the averages and then saying, "MORE than $46 billion per year" is, by their own admission, isn't necessarily true.

The question was, "Are the numbers accurate," and the answer is no.

Quote from Merriam-Webster : Accurate: free from error especially as the result of care <an accurate diagnosis>

As you can tell, their number is definitely not accurate, even though the Heritage Foundation tries to make it sound like it is.

Quote from paperboy05 : And while displaying a vague range you don't get an accurate value either

You get a factual statement, whereas with the averages you don't. By leaving out the context (the ranges), it makes the average completely pointless.

Quote from ASimpleMan : Those would be the accurate figures, yes. Instead of coming out with a report saying: It's misleading and not necessarily true. Using the ranges creates an absolutely 100% accurate statement (assuming the numbers from the source are correct), whereas using the averages and adding them up creates a statement that may or may not be true. Furthermore, using the averages and then saying, "MORE than $46 billion per year" is, by their own admission, isn't necessarily true. The question was, "Are the numbers accurate," and the answer is no. As you can tell, their number is definitely not accurate, even though the Heritage Foundation tries to make it sound like it is. You get a factual statement, whereas with the averages you don't. By leaving out the context (the ranges), it makes the average completely pointless.

So because the Heritage foundation used some numbers that aren't up to par for your standards, their conclusions are invalid, gotcha. Why didn't you just say you wouldn't accept anything in the first place instead of starting some wild goose chase about them making up numbers?

I mean, for all intents and purposes, does it change anything? No.

Quote from paperboy05 : So because the Heritage foundation used some numbers that aren't up to par for your standards, their conclusions are invalid, gotcha. Why didn't you just say you wouldn't accept anything in the first place instead of starting some wild goose chase about them making up numbers? I mean, for all intents and purposes, does it change anything? No.

No, it's not up to my standards, but someone elses. The question was asked, are the numbers accurate and the answer is, "no, they aren't." Even the Heritage Foundation's methodology doesn't backup their "more than $46 Billion."

In addition, the Heritage Foundation makes it look like it's simply a cost scenario, completely leaving out the cost-benefit analysis, which is the real answer. If I implement a regulation that's going to cost $1 Billion, but it stops a $700 Billion bailout, did I really lose money or am I saving money in the long run?