Recent quotes:

The Unconstitutional Mr. Cordray - WSJ

Because one man runs the powerful consumer bureau, the court observed that he “enjoys more unilateral authority than any other officer in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government, other than the President.” He also “possesses enormous power over American business, American consumers, and the overall U.S. economy.”

New study confirms that 80 percent of Americans support mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA - The Washington Post

WARNING: Following government-mandated warnings like this one will sometimes be hazardous to your health, your happiness, or your pocketbook. The government is not liable for any injury or financial losses you may incur by adhering to this warning. Exercise caution and proceed at your own risk.

Home Builders Say They Are Squeezed by Rising Compliance Costs - WSJ

The average cost for home builders to comply with regulations for new home construction has increased by nearly 30% over the last five years, according to new research from the National Association of Home Builders.

FCC Internet Regulations Must Be Scaled Back – InsideSources

The only thing that can prevent Moore’s Law from revolutionizing communication in the next five years is a regulatory policy that inhibits investment in new networks. Research by economist Hal Singer indicates that the FCC’s net neutrality regulations are already having that effect.

Sen. Warren: My Opponents Keep "Saying Whatever They Want About Washington Policy Debates" | Cato @ Liberty

It’s unsettling, to start with – as critics were prompt to note – that a powerful Senator should seek legal consequences for private actors whose “predictions” in Washington policy debates “prove to be inaccurate.” Predictions about effects are the standard way of arguing about public policy – one side predicts, say, that a certain change in policy will cause a slowdown in business or make some good more costly, the other side predicts it won’t, and eventually we find out who was wrong. Pundits, social scientists, and Senators themselves regularly offer predictions that prove wildly inaccurate, yet ordinarily without legal as distinct from reputational consequences.

Obama Readies Flurry of Regulations - WSJ

In his first seven years, Mr. Obama issued 392 regulations deemed “major,” meaning each carries an expected economic effect exceeding $100 million annually. Forty-seven more sat on the drawing board for this year. The tally issued already tops the totals during the eight-year tenures of George W. Bush, at 358, and Bill Clinton, at 361, according to an analysis by George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center.

The Crippling Hold of Old Law - WSJ

No one alive is making critical choices about managing the public sector. American democracy is largely directed by dead people—past members of Congress and former regulators who wrote all the laws and rules that dictate choices today, whether or not they still make sense.

Meet the government guys standing up for franchise workers and contractors - The Washington Post

"He said, 'I don’t understand why you guys are so upset about this,’” recalls IFA President Robert Cresanti, of Griffin’s presentation. “I think when I walked away from this thing, in my head the phrase that kept ringing was, 'this guy is really well intentioned, but we can’t afford to live in a world where intentions matter more than results.' And the result here is the destruction of the franchise industry. And it is slow, and it is not seismic, it’s just piece by piece by piece."

GOP senators: EPA 'deliberately' inflating rule's benefits | TheHill

At the time, it said that “its valuation of the benefits is not yet complete,” since it had not accounted for other benefits to the rule such as “the value one places on knowing that an aquatic ecosystem is healthy” or “secondary and tertiary ecosystem impacts.” Those are known as “non-use” benefits.  More than a year after that initial proposal, the agency published the results of a survey to determine the cost the public was willing to pay, including non-use benefits.  That survey greatly increased the estimated benefits of the rule, from $16.3 million per year before it was conducted to $2.275 billion after, according to the preferred option in an analysis prepared for energy company associations.

Turning back the leviathan of the administrative state | Washington Examiner

Vague delegations of power remove public accountability from government regulation. For example, in delegating EPA regulatory power through the Clean Air Act, congressmen can say they voted for "clean air." But, when EPA issues a controversial regulation, those same members may try to disown it by saying they did not do it. Consequential, long-term policy choices may now be made by agencies, instead of by the people's representatives, leading to regulations on the Internet, greenhouse gas emissions, and mobile technology, even when Congress had none of these issues in mind when it passed the applicable delegating statute. Broad delegation to the administrative state allows Congress to surrender "check and balance" in exchange for "pass the buck."

EPA, Obama administration going full speed ahead on environmental regulations - Watchdog.org

“It certainly seems as though they’ve saved some of their biggest regulations for the end of this administration,” said Greg Bertelsen, director of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

Supreme Court Ruling Against EPA Power Plant Rule Sidesteps Key Issue - US News

The issue is not whether the EPA's regulation is a good idea. Rather, it is unconscionable that federal agencies can issue regulations that cost billions of dollars without any serious consideration of alternatives before making their decisions. For this reason, a priority of regulatory reformers should be legislation that establishes standards for agency economic analysis of regulations and instructs courts to enforce those standards.

Next Twitter boss faces complex challenges, says departing Dick Costolo | Technology | The Guardian

“I will say directly that I think regulation is a threat to free speech,” he said. “I can’t think of an example where regulation didn’t have unintended consequences and I’m unable to conceive of a regulatory body that will be swift enough to deal with the constantly evolving issues of ethics, communication and technology. I just don’t think it’s possible.”

Why the Supreme Court Could Spell Trouble For Obama’s Agenda - NationalJournal.com

"After this decision, an agency would not want to walk into court saying your honor we did not consider costs at all when deciding to take regulatory action on an issue," said Jonathan Adler, an environmental law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

EPA poised to issue landmark water regulations | TheHill

“They’re accustomed to dealing with their respective state environmental enforcement agencies, and this adds an entirely new and disturbing layer of federal bureaucracy on top of all that.”