The Patriot Post Wednesday Digest 8-21-2013

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Wednesday Digest 8-21-2013
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Get Busy Writing Those Regulations

August 21, 2013

THE FOUNDATION

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson

ECONOMY
Get Busy Writing Those Regulations

In 2010, the Democrat-controlled Congress rammed through a gargantuan regulatory package known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Ostensibly, the law was a response to the 2008 financial panic -- a way for Washington to regulate the economy into financial security. As the White House put it this week, its purpose is to "prevent the type of financial harm that led to the Great Recession from ever happening again." They neglected to mention the role federal regulations had in creating the panic in the first place.

Now, Barack Obama's regulatory commissars aren't moving fast enough to finalize those regulations, and the president is insisting they pick up the pace. To date, less than 40% of the law's regulations have been finalized while 61% of the law's deadlines have been missed. So businesses face not only the crushing regulations themselves but also the uncertainty of not yet knowing what they are.

As free-market advocates, we understand that there is often an inverse correlation between unemployment and regulation. Indeed, the Obama Labor Department reports that July unemployment rates increased in 28 states, all while Obama oversees a dramatic expansion of the regulatory state. As The Hill reports1, "Data collected by researchers at George Mason University's Mercatus Center shows that the Code of Federal Regulations, where all rules and regulations are detailed, has ballooned from 71,224 pages in 1975 to 174,545 pages last year." That, of course, doesn't include new Dodd-Frank regulations that are yet to be written, but it also means the long-time problem transcends party lines.

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) estimates that the total cost of regulation to the U.S. economy is an eye-popping $2 trillion, equal to the amount confiscated in income taxes. That cost of compliance has to be paid somehow. It's almost enough to make one wish for the "good" old days of Jimmy Carter and his Executive Order 12174 -- Federal Paperwork Reduction.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
On the Backs of the Young, Married

In order to make the math work on ObamaCare's guaranteed insurance mandate for the old and the sick, the young must bear a disproportionate burden, paying much, much more for insurance they don't need so as to balance the books. A new study2 from the National Center for Public Policy Research explains why the young won't take the bait: "In 2014 many single people aged 18-34 who do not have children will have a substantial financial incentive to forego insurance on the exchanges and instead pay the individual mandate penalty of $95 or one percent of income. About 3.7 million of those ages 18-34 will be at least $500 better off if they forgo insurance and pay the penalty. More than 3 million will be $1,000 better off if they go the same route."

Even though subsidies are available on the honor system3 for those with incomes up to 400% of poverty level, and the penalty for not buying insurance will increase (perhaps sooner than expected with an administration that enforces and changes what it pleases), the young are likely to forego buying insurance in significant numbers. After all, in Obama's economy, not many of them can find work, much less full-time work with benefits. And why buy it now when they could wait until they're sick to sign up?

Married people are also penalized when applying for subsidies. Columnist Terence Jeffrey points out4, "Married couples seeking the subsidy are required to file joint tax returns and whether their premiums are capped or not is determined by the couple's combined income. The law thus imposes a steep penalty on Americans who live in traditional families." Jeffrey calculates the penalty in a hypothetical situation at $8,173. That's not exactly how Democrats advertised the law.

NATIONAL SECURITY
Taking Sides in Egypt

Unrest in Egypt continues as that nation's military solidifies control after deposing Islamist president Mohamed Morsi on July 3. An estimated 900 people were killed in the last week alone. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's policy response is a muddled mess. The White House refuses to label the military takeover a coup, which would trigger the legal requirement to suspend U.S. aid, but the administration delayed $585 million in aid because it's acting like the military staged a coup. U.S. aid guarantees preferential use of the Suez Canal, as well as flyover rights for U.S. military jets. Aid provides 25% of Egypt's defense spending, and the nation is an ally, however tenuous at present.

Despite leftist daydreaming about the "Arab Spring" bringing about democratic revolution throughout the Middle East, reality is far from it. Before the military stepped in, the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt, just as Libya fell to radical Islamists and Syria fends them off. Without U.S. assistance, Iraq may be next5. Under extremist rule, Egyptian Christians experienced intense persecution6, and only the military can or will stop it.

Given all that, realistic U.S. policy can be essentially this: Make further aid contingent upon the Egyptian military defeating the Muslim Brotherhood, protecting Christians and restoring order to the nation. As the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens put it7, "Politics in Egypt today is a zero-sum game: Either the military wins, or the Brotherhood does. If the U.S. wants influence, it needs to hold its nose and take a side."

CULTURE
Climate Change This Week: UN Certainty Goes Up

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seems to have done the impossible: reach a near consensus on the cause of climate change. Despite a wealth of research to the contrary, the IPCC is now 95% certain that climate change is manmade, an assertion it will officially announce in a new report next month. While a variety of human activities are suspect, the primary culprit is -- wait for it -- burning fossil fuels. The report also claims that this has been the main source of global warming since the 1950s.

This scientific "certainty" steadily increased over the years, from 50% in 1995 to 66% in 2001. By 2007, the IPCC claimed 90% certainty -- enough to win a Nobel Prize -- but when that still wasn't sufficient to pressure us into economy-busting legislation, the UN decided to up the ante once again. Basically, all this report shows is that the IPCC has become more adept at skewing the numbers.

Interestingly enough, while the UN's "certainty" has risen, the temperature has not. For the past decade the planet's average temperature has essentially flatlined. The report will struggle to explain this, even going so far as to admit that natural variations -- including the current 11-year solar cycle -- may be the cause. Many of us have long argued that natural variations are a primary cause of any climate change that may or may not be happening, but, more important, massive government regulations are the wrong course.