[oldembed src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OLYubswcRrs" width="400" height="285" resize="1" fid="21"]

Speaker John Boehner gave an economic speech Thursday to the Economic Club of DC called “Liberating America’s Economy.” It contained the usual claptrap about too much government spending and too many taxes on the job creators, etc...Government regulations are also a big target for conservatives to attack because they say it hinders the free market system and in turn kills job creation. They do love certain federal regulations like the blocking of importation of cheaper drugs to America so Big Pharma can keep their monopoly, but I digress. Boehner seized on the number 219 in his speech to attack the Executive Branch for implementing rules which will cost America $100 million, two hundred and nineteen times. Get it?

“At this moment, the Executive Branch has 219 new rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million. “That means under the current Washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from the government of at least $100 million -- 219 times. “I think it’s reasonable to ask: is it wise to be doing all of this right now? “The current regulatory burden coming out of Washington far exceeds the federal government’s constitutional mandate. And it’s hurting job creation in our country at a time when we can’t afford it.

----

“As I mentioned earlier, there are 219 major regulatory actions in the works by the federal bureaucracy right now. We know seven of them will each have an economic impact of $1 billion or more. “The biggest is an EPA rule that could have an impact of as much as $90 billion. “The president acted wisely by halting the implementation of this rule. I would urge the White House to build on it by disclosing to the American people the cost estimates for the remaining 212 ‘economically significant’ rules it has planned.

When will Republicans stop using information they glean about the economy from former Bushie's? Anyway, the numbers he used like "219" was a complete falsehood and the Washington Post has the Pinocchio's to prove it.

The federal government is required to identify regulations that could have an economic impact of more than $100 million, but people frequently misunderstand what that means. It does not necessarily mean $100 million in costs; in fact, it can also mean more than a $100 million in benefits. The Congressional Research Service earlier this year made this clear when it examined the 100 major regulatory rules issued in 2010. The report — which is actually posted on the speaker’s Web site — found that 37 of the 100 rules were deemed “major” because they involved the transfer of federal funds to recipients (such as grants, food stamps, or crop payments). In most cases, this meant more money in people’s pockets, not costs to businesses. (There were another nine rules that decreased transfer payments.) Six of the rules were labeled major because they triggered economic activity by consumers; these all had to do with hunting seasons and bag limits for certain types of migratory birds. Four other rules established new fees (such as increased costs for passports) to fund government operations; others were considered “major” for a variety of reasons. Finally, 39 of the 100 rules were expected to have either $100 million in annual compliance costs, $100 million in annual benefits, or both. In some cases, the ranges were so large that it was difficult to conclude whether the result was a positive or negative benefit. But in 14 cases, the lowest estimate of the benefits exceeded the highest estimate of the costs.

Oh, and about the Bushie: