Reining In the Regulators

For all its rabid partisanship, Congress has shown time and again that it is willing to come together to deregulate corporate America. The latest example is a new bill in the Senate that would effectively end the independence of independent regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/reining-in-the-regulators.html?hp&_r=0

Fishy

5th paragraph.

The review process often adds lengthy delays to already arduous rule-making procedures, in large part because corporations use it as an opportunity to lobby for favorable treatment. It is opaque and also politicized, as shown most recently by the Obama administration in 2012, when it delayed important rules in an attempt to coddle industry and avoid Republican criticism in an election year, creating a regulatory backlog that persists to this day.


Fishy

As apposed to the RWNJ rags that you spout forth.

Of course you all for these corporate interests!

"Diagnosis: Insufficient Outrage"

RECENT revelations should lead those of us involved in America’s health care system to ask a hard question about our business: At what point does it become a crime?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/opinio...eneral&_r=0

It's been fun playing but time to go outside now and enjoy. I know you'll monitor the interwebz for everyone.


Fishy

Hank, I have see with my own eyes regulations in this God forsaken County that verbalize the "cost is no object", neither to individuals nor corporations. Seriously.

There are many who share that view.

and it is RWWJ's who are the obstructionists??? Really!!

Here's a little light reading for your pleasure as you monitor the Hamster forum and the interwebz while the rest of us are out enjoying this fine day.

http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2009/06/...rhaul-the-hill/

http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/ind...b2-e040407cf0ba

Americans for Financial Reform
1629 K St NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC, 20006
202.466.1885
March 20, 2013
Dear Senator,
On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform1, we are writing to express our opposition to the variety of amendments proposed to the pending 2014 budget resolution that would impose virtually insurmountable procedural hurdles that underfunded financial regulators must satisfy before putting in place additional oversight over Wall Street financial companies. Among these amendments are #145 (Collins), #164 (Ayotte), #174 (Inhofe), #175 (Inhofe), #215 (Blunt), #340 (Shelby), #367 (Risch), #376 (Paul), #459 (Collins), #462 (Johanns), #463 (Johanns), #465 (Johanns), #472 (Cruz), and #571 (Ayotte.) By adding yet more layers of cost-benefit analysis for financial rules, these amendments could indefinitely delay the process of creating adequate oversight of our financial system.
According to recent polling data, over 70 percent of Americans favor stronger oversight and tougher rules for big Wall Street banks and the financial services industry. This is not surprising, given the estimates that the financial crisis cost the economy as much as $13 trillion and resulted in massive job losses and household savings. It is evident that the costs and risks of failing to act on financial reforms necessary to prevent another financial crisis are overwhelming.
The kind of burdensome and time-consuming cost-benefit analysis procedures called for in these amendments is not about improving analysis, it is about introducing additional roadblocks to meaningful change and more opportunities for Wall Street to engage in litigation and block reform.
Financial agencies are already statutorily required to analyze and consider the economic costs and benefits of their regulations, and they do so. They must also consider comments from business and the public. In the nearly three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the financial regulatory agencies have considered tens of thousands of public comments and held thousands of meetings and round tables. They have been subjected to multiple industry lawsuits on the basis of their existing statutory economic analysis requirements. Today, just one-third of the rulemaking mandated under Dodd-Frank has been finalized. Financial oversight agencies have pointed to unrealistic cost-benefit analysis standards already in place as one major reason for the delay.
1 Americans for Financial Reform is an unprecedented coalition of more than 250 national, state and local groups who have come together to reform the financial industry. Members of our coalition include consumer, civil rights, investor, retiree, community, labor, religious and business groups.
The public wants and deserves real change in our financial system to protect us from the risk of another disastrous financial collapse, and to ensure that consumers and investors are not subject to abusive, deceptive, and fraudulent practices by the big banks. Don’t vote to prevent and delay this needed reform. Oppose amendments intended to add new and burdensome layers of cost-benefit analysis or create other barriers to needed agency action, such as #145 (Collins), #164 (Ayotte), #174 (Inhofe), #175 (Inhofe), #215 (Blunt), #340 (Shelby), #367 (Risch), #376 (Paul), #459 (Collins), #462 (Johanns), #463 (Johanns), #465 (Johanns), #472 (Cruz), and #571 (Ayotte) and any other similar amendments.
Thank you for your consideration. For more information please contact AFR’s Policy Director, Marcus Stanley at marcus@ourfinancialsecurity.org or 202-466-3672.
Sincerely,
Americans for Financial Reform
Following are the partners of Americans for Financial Reform.
All the organizations support the overall principles of AFR and are working for an accountable, fair and secure financial system. Not all of these organizations work on all of the issues covered by the coalition or have signed on to every statement.
• A New Way Forward
• AFL-CIO
• AFSCME
• Alliance For Justice
• American Income Life Insurance
• American Sustainable Business Council
• Americans for Democratic Action, Inc
• Americans United for Change
• Campaign for America’s Future
• Campaign Money
• Center for Digital Democracy
• Center for Economic and Policy Research
• Center for Economic Progress
• Center for Media and Democracy
• Center for Responsible Lending
• Center for Justice and Democracy
• Center of Concern
• Center for Effective Government
• Change to Win
• Clean Yield Asset Management
• Coastal Enterprises Inc.
• Color of Change
• Common Cause
• Communications Workers of America
• Community Development Transportation Lending Services
• Consumer Action
• Consumer Association Council
• Consumers for Auto Safety and Reliability
• Consumer Federation of America
• Consumer Watchdog
• Consumers Union
• Corporation for Enterprise Development
• CREDO Mobile
• CTW Investment Group
• Demos
• Economic Policy Institute
• Essential Action
• Greenlining Institute
• Good Business International
• HNMA Funding Company
• Home Actions
• Housing Counseling Services
• Home Defender’s League
• Information Press
• Institute for Global Communications
• Institute for Policy Studies: Global Economy Project
• International Brotherhood of Teamsters
• Institute of Women’s Policy Research
• Krull & Company
• Laborers’ International Union of North America
• Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
• Main Street Alliance
• Move On
• NAACP
• NASCAT
• National Association of Consumer Advocates
• National Association of Neighborhoods
• National Community Reinvestment Coalition
• National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients)
• National Consumers League
• National Council of La Raza
• National Council of Women’s Organizations
• National Fair Housing Alliance
• National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions
• National Housing Resource Center
• National Housing Trust
• National Housing Trust Community Development Fund
• National NeighborWorks Association
• National Nurses United
• National People’s Action
• National Urban League
• Next Step
• OpenTheGovernment.org
• Opportunity Finance Network
• Partners for the Common Good
• PICO National Network
• Progress Now Action
• Progressive States Network
• Poverty and Race Research Action Council
• Public Citizen
• Sargent Shriver Center on Poverty Law
• SEIU
• State Voices
• Taxpayer’s for Common Sense
• The Association for Housing and Neighborhood Development
• The Fuel Savers Club
• The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
• The Seminal
• TICAS
• U.S. Public Interest Research Group
• UNITE HERE
• United Food and Commercial Workers
• United States Student Association
• USAction
• Veris Wealth Partners
• Western States Center
• We the People Now
• Woodstock Institute
• World Privacy Forum
• UNET
• Union Plus
• Unitarian Universalist for a Just Economic Community
List of State and Local Partners
• Alaska PIRG
• Arizona PIRG
• Arizona Advocacy Network
• Arizonans For Responsible Lending
• Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development NY
• Audubon Partnership for Economic Development LDC, New York NY
• BAC Funding Consortium Inc., Miami FL
• Beech Capital Venture Corporation, Philadelphia PA
• California PIRG
• California Reinvestment Coalition
• Century Housing Corporation, Culver City CA
• CHANGER NY
• Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and Improvement Corporation (NY)
• Chicago Community Loan Fund, Chicago IL
• Chicago Community Ventures, Chicago IL
• Chicago Consumer Coalition
• Citizen Potawatomi CDC, Shawnee OK
• Colorado PIRG
• Coalition on Homeless Housing in Ohio
• Community Capital Fund, Bridgeport CT
• Community Capital of Maryland, Baltimore MD
• Community Development Financial Institution of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells AZ
• Community Redevelopment Loan and Investment Fund, Atlanta GA
• Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina
• Community Resource Group, Fayetteville A
• Connecticut PIRG
• Consumer Assistance Council
• Cooper Square Committee (NYC)
• Cooperative Fund of New England, Wilmington NC
• Corporacion de Desarrollo Economico de Ceiba, Ceiba PR
• Delta Foundation, Inc., Greenville MS
• Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF), Philadelphia PA
• Empire Justice Center NY
• Empowering and Strengthening Ohio’s People (ESOP), Cleveland OH
• Enterprises, Inc., Berea KY
• Fair Housing Contact Service OH
• Federation of Appalachian Housing
• Fitness and Praise Youth Development, Inc., Baton Rouge LA
• Florida Consumer Action Network
• Florida PIRG
• Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, Ft. Collins CO
• Georgia PIRG
• Grow Iowa Foundation, Greenfield IA
• Homewise, Inc., Santa Fe NM
• Idaho Nevada CDFI, Pocatello ID
• Idaho Chapter, National Association of Social Workers
• Illinois PIRG
• Impact Capital, Seattle WA
• Indiana PIRG
• Iowa PIRG
• Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
• JobStart Chautauqua, Inc., Mayville NY
• La Casa Federal Credit Union, Newark NJ
• Low Income Investment Fund, San Francisco CA
• Long Island Housing Services NY
• MaineStream Finance, Bangor ME
• Maryland PIRG
• Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition
• MASSPIRG
• Massachusetts Fair Housing Center
• Michigan PIRG
• Midland Community Development Corporation, Midland TX
• Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation, Detroit Lakes MN
• Mile High Community Loan Fund, Denver CO
• Missouri PIRG
• Mortgage Recovery Service Center of L.A.
• Montana Community Development Corporation, Missoula MT
• Montana PIRG
• Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project
• New Hampshire PIRG
• New Jersey Community Capital, Trenton NJ
• New Jersey Citizen Action
• New Jersey PIRG
• New Mexico PIRG
• New York PIRG
• New York City Aids Housing Network
• New Yorkers for Responsible Lending
• NOAH Community Development Fund, Inc., Boston MA
• Nonprofit Finance Fund, New York NY
• Nonprofits Assistance Fund, Minneapolis M
• North Carolina PIRG
• Northside Community Development Fund, Pittsburgh PA
• Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing, Columbus OH
• Ohio PIRG
• OligarchyUSA
• Oregon State PIRG
• Our Oregon
• PennPIRG
• Piedmont Housing Alliance, Charlottesville VA
• Michigan PIRG
• Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, CO
• Rhode Island PIRG
• Rural Community Assistance Corporation, West Sacramento CA
• Rural Organizing Project OR
• San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority
• Seattle Economic Development Fund
• Community Capital Development
• TexPIRG
• The Fair Housing Council of Central New York
• The Loan Fund, Albuquerque NM
• Third Reconstruction Institute NC
• Vermont PIRG
• Village Capital Corporation, Cleveland OH
• Virginia Citizens Consumer Council
• Virginia Poverty Law Center
• War on Poverty - Florida
• WashPIRG
• Westchester Residential Opportunities Inc.
• Wigamig Owners Loan Fund, Inc., Lac du Flambeau WI
• WISPIRG
Small Businesses
• Blu
• Bowden-Gill Environmental
• Community MedPAC
• Diversified Environmental Planning
• Hayden & Craig, PLLC
• Mid City Animal Hospital, Pheonix AZ
• The Holographic Repatterning Institute at Austin

March 21, 2013
Dear Senator,
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards is a broad coalition of groups concerned with protecting our nation’s regulatory framework, which we believe is essential to protecting workers and our communities, improving public health, protecting the environment, and driving innovation and job creation for a growing economy. We are writing to express our concerns with a number of amendments to be considered during the Budget Resolution of 2013 vote.
In addition, we urge your strong opposition to any amendment that seeks to alter the regulatory process in a way that makes it more difficult to pass regulations that protect Americans from harm. This includes amendments that require agencies to include additional cost-benefit requirements, seek a moratorium on regulations until unemployment falls below a certain point, bring independent agencies under Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review, or change the process in a way that inappropriately injects political considerations in passing new rules that are supposed to be based on objective agency science and expertise.
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE:
Amendment 145 (Sen. Collins) calls for executive department and independent regulatory agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to conduct cost-benefit analyses for significant rules. This type of proposal was made during the 112th Congress in S. 3468, the Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act, which would have hamstrung the regulatory process by saddling independent agencies with additional cost-benefit requirements. Just like S. 3468, this amendment would severely undermine the ability of independent agencies to respond efficiently to crises as they occur. How could the CPSC respond to a faulty product line and pull unsafe and defective items off of stores’ shelves if it had to conduct time-consuming cost-benefit analyses? Consumers would lose if this amendment passed.
Amendment 174 (Sen. Inhofe) calls for federal agencies to consider the “full cost of regulations, including indirect job losses and the negative health impacts of indirect job losses, prior to enacting or amending any regulation or rule.” The present process, however, already requires cost-benefit analysis, and virtually every rule has benefits that are significantly higher than the costs. Cost-benefit analysis is a deeply flawed process that overstates costs and tends to understate benefits, particularly if those benefits can’t easily be measured and counted. How can regulators assign a dollar amount to the benefits of cleaner air and water? Such measures will only benefit those corporations that wish to game the system and evade safety standards while doing nothing to protect the American public.
Amendment 205 (Sen. Sessions) seeks to deprive citizens of the resources required to enforce federal
law. The amendment attacks citizen suits that spur federal agencies to move forward with legally
required regulatory actions—actions that are often aimed at protecting human health, safety, and the
environment. Contrary to the likely assertions of the amendment’s proponents, lawsuits compelling
regulatory action do not dictate the ultimate substance of agency rules. Instead, they most often
establish a new deadline for issuing draft and final rules when an agency has already missed a statutory
deadline. Parties and nonparties alike can and do submit comments during the subsequent rulemaking
process, ensuring that all voices are heard. Because the lawsuits targeted by Amendment 205 are
essential in ensuring that citizens have the regulatory protections Congress has provided, you should
oppose this provision.
These amendments represent a radical threat to our government’s ability to protect the public from
harm and will delay or shut down the implementation of critical new public health and safety
protections, thereby making corporate scofflaws even less accountable to the public. They will only
benefit those companies that wish to game the system and evade safety standards while doing nothing
to protect the American public.
We strongly urge you to vote “No” on the specific amendments described above and to any of the
several other amendments circulating that would threaten our public protections and safeguards.
Please oppose these amendments forcefully.
Sincerely,
Katherine McFate, President and CEO, OMB Watch Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards is an alliance of consumer, labor, scientific, research, good
government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public interest groups, as well as concerned
individuals, joined in the belief that our country’s system of regulatory safeguards provides a stable
framework that secures our quality of life and paves the way for a sound economy that benefits us all.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=5518&frcrld=1

Oppose Harmful Amendments to the Budget Resolution of 2013
Dire Consequences for Consumers
A number of amendments being considered as the Senate votes on the Budget Resolution Act of 2013 will weaken the regulatory process necessary to protect consumers from predatory financial schemes, dangerous consumer products and costly, anti-competitive practices. This may not be a comprehensive list, as new harmful amendments may have been introduced since it was drafted. We urge senators to oppose these and any similar amendments that would undermine the ability of regulators to fulfill their regulatory mandate efficiently and effectively.
We urge a “No” vote on the following amendments:
• This amendment would impact independent agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by requiring time consuming analysis and imposing duplicative and redundant cost-benefit requirements.
Vote “No” on Collins Amendment 145
• This amendment will have the result of delaying, if not thwarting, important consumer protections.
• This amendment is similar to S. 3468, Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act, that was introduced in the 112th Congress and which was opposed by the leaders of of six financial agencies, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the CPSC, former Commissioners of the CPSC and consumer, environmental, good government, labor organizations.
• This amendment seeks to prevent the Department of Labor from addressing ERISA fiduciary duty protections in Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs).
Vote “No” on Ayotte Amendment 165
• ERISA fiduciary protections are the basic rules that protect employee retirement savings from being lost through fraudulent or deceptive financial management by pension trustees or advisors.
• The appraisal and valuation of stocks in ESOPs is a problem area that poses particular challenges where company stock is not publicly traded. The Department of Labor’s authority to deal with those issues must not be impeded.
• This amendment would require agencies to conduct economic analysis that includes quantifying unknowable costs.
Vote “No” on Inhofe Amendment 174
• This amendment will further delay agency work on much needed public protections.
• This amendment will provide an additional way for those opposed to the consumer protections in the regulation to thwart the promulgation of the rule.
• This amendment seeks to limit the ways that consumers and all Americans can enforce federal law.
Vote “No” Sessions Amendment 205
• This amendment would weaken an individual’s ability to bring a lawsuit to enforce federal law by prohibiting legal fees for individuals who succeed in such cases.
• Individual actions to enforce federal law are focused on protecting public safety, health and the environment.
• This amendment would require agencies to include the indirect impact of a regulation on manufacturing when assessing the costs and benefits of regulation.
Vote “No” on Blunt Amendment 215
• This amendment requires an impossible to quantify analysis that will result in the further delay or potential stopping of the regulatory process.
• This amendment requires agencies that have jurisdiction over aspects of the financial market to engage in a more extensive cost benefit analysis for rules it promulgates.
Vote “No” on Shelby Amendment 340
• This amendment would add delays to, or could thwart entirely, the often already delayed rules that would protect consumers from unfair financial markets, products and services and promote the stability and integrity of our financial markets.
• This amendment will impede the process of the formulation of much needed consumer protections.
• This amendment would thwart all regulatory activity that is not expressly required by Congress.
Vote “No” on Risch Amendment 367
• This amendment would tie the hands of federal agencies who seek to protect consumers based upon their own expert analysis of an unsafe or unfair practice or product.
• This amendment would eviscerate the ability of agencies to affirmatively respond to public petitions seeking consumer protections.
For further information about these and other amendments that would weaken the regulatory process and harm consumers, please contact Rachel Weintraub, legislative Director and Senior Counsel at Consumer Federation of America at rweintraub@consumerfed.org.
###
Consumer Federation of America is an association of nearly 300 non-profit consumer organizations that was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, education and advocacy

Press Statement
For Immediate Release
Media Contact: Jessica Ault
jault@bettermarkets.com
Tel: 202-618-6430
Washington DC, March 22, 2013
Congress Must Stop Helping Wall Street Kill Financial Reform
“Wall Street’s Congressional allies are renewing their assault on financial reform with a fresh wave of proposals that would cripple the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulators to protect the public. These latest attacks are in the form of amendments to the Budget bill in the Senate, which is being voted on this afternoon,” said Dennis Kelleher, President of Better Markets, Inc., an independent nonprofit organization that promotes the public interest in the financial markets.
”The most common and most dangerous tactic is forcing independent agencies to conduct what the opponents of financial reform misleadingly call ‘cost-benefit analysis,’ which really only counts industry costs and disregards the costs and benefits to the public. The last financial crisis was caused by de-regulation and non-regulation of the financial industry, which is what will happen if these proposals are passed. The last financial crisis will cost this country more than $12.8 trillion dollars and financial reform is trying to prevent that from happening again. But, these needless and burdensome proposals will make another crisis and more Wall Street bailouts more likely,” said Mr. Kelleher.
The amendments take various forms, ranging from requiring Congressional approval for all regulations (Risch Amendment #367), restricting access to the courts for those seeking to enforce their rights (Sessions Amendment #205), narrowing the duty of care that advisers owe under ERISA (Ayotte Amendment #165) and imposing so-called cost-benefit analysis on the SEC (Collins Amendment #145).
The effect of these amendments will not be to improve the quality of regulation for the benefit of the American people. Instead, they will slow and weaken regulation and benefit Wall Street along with every other regulated industry.
Although they may sound harmless, or even sensible, these amendments are dangerous and should not be supported:
Cost-benefit analysis is a one-sided and grossly inaccurate methodology, since it ignores huge benefits that can’t be easily quantified—such as preventing another $13 trillion dollar financial crisis—but exaggerates costs to industry. For example, the Inhofe amendment (#174) would require federal agencies to consider the “full cost of regulations, including indirect job losses” prior to adopting a rule. Such a calculation is not only impossible, but completely one-sided: it focuses entirely on costs, not on benefits to the public. What the Wall Street lobbyists really mean by “cost-benefit analysis” is “industry-cost-only analysis.”
Cost-benefit analysis drains scarce agency resources and slows rulemaking to a crawl. We’ve seen it happen already at the SEC, where rulemaking is at a virtual standstill after several of its rules were invalidated on cost-benefit grounds.
Imposing cost-benefit analysis on the independent financial regulators overturns decades of public policy that these agencies must not be saddled with such burdens precisely because the public interest, not industry costs, should come first.
The end result of this campaign, if allowed to succeed, is plain: The SEC, the CFTC and the other financial regulators will be unable to implement the reforms desperately needed to prevent another financial crisis and economic meltdown, like the one we’ve been suffering through since 2007. These proposals should be opposed. Doing so will protect taxpayers, the financial system and the economy.
Better Markets
Better Markets is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes the public interest in financial reform in the domestic and global capital and commodity markets. Better Markets advocates for transparency, oversight and accountability with the goal of a stronger, safer financial system that is less prone to crisis and failure thereby eliminating or minimizing the need for more taxpayer funded bailouts.

AFL-CIO, American Association of University Professors, American Rivers, Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Effective Government, Center for Responsible Lending, Citizens' Environmental Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Demos, Earthjustice, Empire State Consumer Project (Rochester, New York), Natural Resource Defense Council, Public Citizen, Sciencecorps (Lexington, Massachusetts), Sierra Club,
U.S. PIRG, Union of Concerned Scientists
Groups Opposed to Damaging Regulatory Amendments
March 21, 2013
Dear Senator,
Our undersigned groups strongly oppose amendments to S. Con. Res 8, the Murray budget resolution, which would cripple the regulatory process, weaken important public protections, and make it easier for corporations to game the system.
We urge your strong opposition to any amendment that seeks to alter the regulatory process in a way that makes it more difficult to pass regulations that protect Americans from harm.
This includes amendments that will: require agencies to include additional cost-benefit requirements, seek a moratorium on regulations until unemployment falls below a certain point, bring independent agencies under the review of the Office of Management and Budget add “indirect” costs and benefits to agency analysis; change the process in a way that inappropriately injects political considerations in passing new rules that are supposed to be based on objective agency science and expertise, and any other proposal that in the name of “regulatory burdens” jeopardizes the health and safety of American families.
Such proposals will make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect us from polluted air and water, tainted food, unsafe drugs, dangerous toys, hazardous workplaces, and financial predators. We strongly urge you to stand up for the American public and vote No on any amendment that would weaken this safety net of public protections.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO
American Association of University Professors
American Rivers
Americans for Financial Reform
Center for Effective Government
Center for Responsible Lending
Citizens' Environmental Coalition
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers Union
Demos
Earthjustice
Empire State Consumer Project (Rochester, New York)
Natural Resource Defense Council
Public Citizen
Sciencecorps (Lexington, Massachusetts)
Sierra Club
U.S. PIRG
Union of Concerned Scientists

Enjoy your day!


Fishy

Hey Smells, That looks like a list of organizations that deserve extra scrutiny from the IRS.

I know you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him "think" so I have provided this easy link for you to understand that the ineptness of the IRS was not limited to your RWNJobs tax evaders.

Click and read.

IRS kept shifting targets in tax-exempt groups scrutiny: report

(Reuters) - When tax agents started singling out non-profit groups for extra scrutiny in 2010, they looked at first only for key words such as 'Tea Party,' but later they focused on criticisms by groups of "how the country is being run," according to investigative findings reviewed by Reuters on Sunday.

Over two years, IRS field office agents repeatedly changed their criteria while sifting through thousands of applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status to select ones for possible closer examination, the findings showed.

At one point, the agents chose to screen applications from groups focused on making "America a better place to live."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/13/us-usa-tax-irs-criteria-idUSBRE94C03N20130513

Hope you RWNJobs don't have a problem with Reuters!


Fishy

I see you did not respond to your reading assignment.

Poor Hamster, so much interwebz and so little life!


Outside again today, monitor away.


Fishy

Didn't think you would


Fishy

Reading you imply that others don't "think" is analogous to Todd calling others "clowns".

Very succinct comment, I know your very busy monitoring the Interwebz.

Ride that hamster wheel!!!!

Gone Fishin!


Fishy

Fishy Out- fishin

I understand the long leaders, but are the beads kept shiny just to mislead the game wardens?

You crack me up, still dodging the original intent of this thread!


Fishy

What a twit, its about ending the independence of independent regulatory agency's.

I shouldn't expect anything different from "The" kook-aid drinker of the board.


Fishy

Jesus Hamster, I guess you expect others to read all of your posts but your above reading theirs so I'll condense some of what others have said;

This is really all I need but there is so much more:

"""""" Cost-benefit analysis is a deeply flawed process that overstates costs and tends to understate benefits, particularly if those benefits can’t easily be measured and counted. How can regulators assign a dollar amount to the benefits of cleaner air and water? Such measures will only benefit those corporations that wish to game the system and evade safety standards while doing nothing to protect the American public.""""""""

" pending 2014 budget resolution that would impose virtually insurmountable procedural hurdles that underfunded financial regulators must satisfy before putting in place additional oversight over Wall Street financial companies."

"The kind of burdensome and time-consuming cost-benefit analysis procedures called for in these amendments is not about improving analysis, it is about introducing additional roadblocks to meaningful change and more opportunities for Wall Street to engage in litigation and block reform."

"In the nearly three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the financial regulatory agencies have considered tens of thousands of public comments and held thousands of meetings and round tables. They have been subjected to multiple industry lawsuits on the basis of their existing statutory economic analysis requirements. Today, just one-third of the rulemaking mandated under Dodd-Frank has been finalized. Financial oversight agencies have pointed to unrealistic cost-benefit analysis standards already in place as one major reason for the delay."

"We are writing to express our concerns with a number of amendments to be considered during the Budget Resolution of 2013 vote.
In addition, we urge your strong opposition to any amendment that seeks to alter the regulatory process in a way that makes it more difficult to pass regulations that protect Americans from harm. This includes amendments that require agencies to include additional cost-benefit requirements, seek a moratorium on regulations until unemployment falls below a certain point, bring independent agencies under Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review, or change the process in a way that inappropriately injects political considerations in passing new rules that are supposed to be based on objective agency science and expertise."

"Just like S. 3468, this amendment would severely undermine the ability of independent agencies to respond efficiently to crises as they occur. How could the CPSC respond to a faulty product line and pull unsafe and defective items off of stores’ shelves if it had to conduct time-consuming cost-benefit analyses? Consumers would lose if this amendment passed."

"The present process, however, already requires cost-benefit analysis, and virtually every rule has benefits that are significantly higher than the costs"

"Amendment 205 (Sen. Sessions) seeks to deprive citizens of the resources required to enforce federal
law. The amendment attacks citizen suits that spur federal agencies to move forward with legally
required regulatory actions."

"Resolution Act of 2013 will weaken the regulatory process necessary to protect consumers from predatory financial schemes, dangerous consumer products and costly, anti-competitive practices."

" This amendment seeks to prevent the Department of Labor from addressing ERISA fiduciary duty protections in Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs).
Vote “No” on Ayotte Amendment 165
• ERISA fiduciary protections are the basic rules that protect employee retirement savings from being lost through fraudulent or deceptive financial management by pension trustees or advisors."

" This amendment seeks to limit the ways that consumers and all Americans can enforce federal law."

" This amendment would weaken an individual’s ability to bring a lawsuit to enforce federal law by prohibiting legal fees for individuals who succeed in such cases."

"Vote “No” on Shelby Amendment 340
• This amendment would add delays to, or could thwart entirely, the often already delayed rules that would protect consumers from unfair financial markets, products and services and promote the stability and integrity of our financial markets."

"Vote “No” on Risch Amendment 367
• This amendment would tie the hands of federal agencies who seek to protect consumers based upon their own expert analysis of an unsafe or unfair practice or product."

I could go on but I don't expect to change your mind or have you take any of this seriously. What I do expect is more personal attacks because your argument doesn't hold water.

Nice day outside, time to head out.


Fishy

The increased regulatory burden at the bank I work for has decreased our profitability by roughly 16%. Regulators are seriously running amok. I see this first hand.

I don't know how either one of your arguments can be holding any water for as long as this pissing contest has been going on...

Jesus Hamster your blinded by the "Kool-aid".

Turn Limbaugh off and take your meds.

Here’s the insanely long list of amendments filed to the Senate budget


The Senate passed a budget for the first time in four years shortly before 5 a.m. on Saturday. Why was the night so long? Before the debate could end, senators spent hours wading through a long series of symbolic, non-binding votes on amendments to the budget, a.k.a. “vote-a-rama.”

Senators filed more than 500 amendments, but just a fraction of the total was actually brought to the floor last night for a vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...-senate-budget/

I am off to fish for a spell so will not be around to listen to your blather, pontificate about how right you are indifferent to all of the facts.
Monitor the Interwebz and continue riding that "Hamster wheel of web, there's arguing to do.
I'll be thinking of you, NOT!

Fishy- out fishing.