13 thoughts on “6,125”

1. That’s the Big Mac of big government we have going on right here.

   • This causes me to again recall something from the Obama Instruction Manual of Governance (Rand’s Atlas Shrugged), an exchange between Hank Rearden and Dr. Floyd Ferris, Ph.D., the Associate Director of the State Science Institute:

     “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it.

     You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

     When a principle can mean anything or everything, it really means nothing and ceases to be a principle. It would seem that is where we are and the very reason that we need a reboot.

     Resolutions.

     • Amazing how that logic works. Like a fine poem rolling right off the tongue. Vilify everyone, and punish them accordingly.

       How exceedingly humane of the progressive (erm … now we have to call it moderate) movement.

       • Augger,

         I tried to explain this: it is Cass Sunstein and his book, “Nudge.” He explained ALL of this, he even boasted about it. First they suggest, then they nudge and if you still do not “voluntarily” do what they want, then they shove you. Freedom — progressive style

     • Utah,

       So you are saying that these people are — once again — openly admitting that everything I have been trying to tell people they believe and want to do and how they intend to do it has been true???

       Imagine, an honest conservative named B3A

       (That was not aimed at you, boss. The intended audience will be along soon enough )

       • You have broken “so many” “laws” — but if you kneel and kiss the ring, you, and your family, will be granted mercy, for as long as you do as “I” say….

         • Texas,

           EXACTLY! Rule of man, not of law.

2. Pingback: A Nation of Felons | The Rio Norte Line

3. Pingback: American EXCEPTIONALISM under assault… | The Rio Norte Line

4. Just pulled a new regulation up at random. No, this won’t be costly at all. As it says elsewhere, this is not a “substantial” change, “merely” an update.

   http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0738-0002

   “SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the National Oil and Hazardous
   Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, to acknowledge advancements in
   technologies used to manage and convey information to the public.
   Specifically, this revision will add language to EPA regulations to
   broaden the technology, to include computer telecommunications or other
   electronic means, that the lead agency is permitted to use to make the
   administrative record file available to the public. By updating
   language used to describe permitted technology, the lead agency will be
   able to serve the information needs of a broader population while
   maintaining the ability to provide traditional means of public access
   to the administrative record file, such as paper copies and microform.
   The lead agency should assess the capacity and resources of the public
   to utilize and maintain an electronic- or computer”

   • Not sure if my sarcasm came through on that one. Of course communications updates will be costly.

5. proposed being the key word. The last review I remember- which was probably about this time last year, found Obama had approved fewer regulations then Bush Jr at the same point in his presidency. At a slightly higher cost to businesses. But at a far lower cost to taxpayers then the historic high under Bush Sr.

   so… ???

   • I’ll use your tactic. Would you care to cite your sources?