cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012

There is a bill quietly moving through the Senate that has many people up in arms.  It would require independent oversight agencies created by and reporting to Congress to coordinate with the Executive Branch before acting on significant issues.  Opponents claim it would strenghten the hand of big banks and corporations that want to influence these agencies and would thus weaken and slow actions taken by the agencies on behalf of the consumer and less powerful agencies.

 

Here's a quote from a NYT blog on the subject.  Many more hits made via a search engine.

 

"By design, independent agencies, unlike cabinet departments and executive agencies, do not report to the White House. They report to Congress, which deemed them independent precisely in order keep them insulated from undue political pressure from the executive branch. Independent agencies include the financial regulators – such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — as well as dozens of other agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

The Senate bill, called the “Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012,” would undermine the independence of the independent agencies, and with it, their ability to do their jobs. Among its provisions, it would require the agencies to submit all significant proposed rules to the White House for vetting. That would introduce delays to an already slow process, and would give banks and businesses yet another place to lobby for favorable treatment. A negative review from the White House would result in further delays while the agency defended – and or altered – its proposals. Any negative White House views would also be fodder for industry groups to use in mounting legal challenges to rules that are eventually put in place."

 

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/making-independent-agencies-less-independent/

 

Agencies would have to submit a cost benefit analysis to OMB before taking action.

 

How would this affect agriculture?  One way might be the effectiveness of the CFTC.

 

"Evidence is mounting that the legislation would have a detrimental effect on key independent agencies charged with oversight of the banking and financial industry, including the SEC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. "

 

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/12270

 

 

0 Kudos
13 Replies
clayton58
Veteran Advisor

Re: Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012

The constitution created 3 branches of government.. Meant to actr  as checks and balances to one another.  My first reaction is that this would be a way to circumvent the balances and give way to much power to the executive branch.  IMO we've been heading down that road already, and this would accelerate that trend.  Did I get the right or wrong impression?

 

0 Kudos
clayton58
Veteran Advisor

Re: Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012

Also, I'm puzzled as to why the Senate would willingly give up some of its power?

0 Kudos
Kay/NC
Honored Advisor

Re: Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012

That last question was exactly my first thought...makes no sheds for the Srnate to give thisower over, except that the Democratic Senate might wish to hand the authority to a Democratic President, rather than find itself subjected to Republican scrutiny of this type of oversight. Vetting is such a peculiar word, in this context, to me. also, the federal mantra for many years now has been cost: benefit analysis. Anyone can bend those calculations to skew the decisions that require bang for a buck... If we are talking about a public dollar and how ,uch benefit that buys, ti's one thing. f we are talking about a dollar of regulatory cost to a producer, for a dollar's benefit to everyone else, we are royally screwed.
0 Kudos

Re: Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012

because most of them are idiots

0 Kudos
sw363535
Honored Advisor

Re: Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012

I have been way too synical in this election year and am enduring some self imposed theropy for such-------- but I am not much better as a therapist than a marketer or farmer.

 

My first reaction was ------------------ Great, now we are going to outsource legislative responsibiliity.   Hire a professional government to assist our elected one............???     Don't we already do that??  🙂

0 Kudos
kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: in my opinion the worst transfer of power

is the war powers act where congress transferred the power to declare war to the executive. One man decided to invade Iraq and Iraq was never ever a military threat to the USA. 

 

How do we justify the thousands of dead and injured american soldiers and the 10's of thousands of killed and ijured iraqi citizens. We did not have legal or moral justification for doing that. War crimes more than likely.

0 Kudos

Congress responsibility

Congress has the power of the purse.  

 

We could also reinstitute the draft.  How long do you think the war would last if the draft were in force?

0 Kudos
Kay/NC
Honored Advisor

Re: Congress responsibility

The more jaded side of me sometimes thinks that unemployment is left unaddressed a lot to leave enough of a frustrated labor pool wanting, to turn towards military enlistment. That way, we have the illusion of an all- volunteer fighting force. Other than assembling drones and similar technology, and pointing them in the right direction, maybe we won't need so many warriors in future generations.
0 Kudos
Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: in my opinion the worst transfer of power

I thought the War Powers Act, was intended to LIMIT the power of the President, as far as military actions go, not give them more.


I looked up the War Powers Act, on Wikipedia, and they had some interesting info about the WPA, and its violations.  I added some emphasis, to point it out:

 

Quick answer:  http://www.answers.com/topic/war-powers-act

 

(Nov. 7, 1973)  Law passed by the U.S. Congress over the veto of Pres. Richard  Nixon. The act restrained the president's ability to commit U.S. forces  overseas by requiring the executive branch to consult with and report to  Congress before involving U.S. forces in foreign hostilities. Widely considered  a measure for preventing future Vietnams, it was nonetheless resisted or ignored  by subsequent presidents, most of whom regarded it as an unconstitutional  usurpation of their executive authority.

Read more:  http://www.answers.com/topic/war-powers-act#ixzz2Bt3KJNUG

 

 

More details from Wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations.[2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [4][5]

 

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2).

 

-snip-

 

 

 

 

Note, which President's name, is absent from the list of Presidents overreaching their authority, according to the War Powers Act.

I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 'B'.