If the Senator will let me respond, again, I think you are right. The reference is to the legislation. My guess is that the regulatory agencies would determine the fiscal impact. I would think they would do it not on fiscal year but on calendar year--I may be incorrect--and that if the regulatory impact exceeded $100 million, as adjusted for inflation in subsequent years, then they would have to identify the costs. Again, I do not see that as a big burden. If you are going to have a regulatory impact on the public sector in excess of $100 million, they should know it and identify it. If they are going to have a regulatory impact on the private sector in excess of $100 million, for subsequent years--my colleague mentioned 5 years, and I do not know what regulatory agencies--we do 5-year budgeting, although not very well. But I do not know that when they issue those regulatory statements, they automatically cover 5 years. I am not sure.
Don Nickles: “If the Senator will let me respond, again, I think you are right. The reference is to the legislation. My guess is that…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the fiscal impact of regulatory legislation and its implications for public and private sectors.
Share
More from Don Nickles
law makers must carefully distinguish between the need for tax credits which may operate as subsidies, compared to more favored tax deductions which are expensed as part of ordinary business operations.
I understand the Senator didn't like my first question because she is trying to give the Guard and Reserve additional compensation and additional pay but through a tax credit which goes to their employer which may take some time to get…
You cannot afford to make fossil fuels' tax equal to the enormous subsidy that wind currently receives.
Is there any job in the Federal Government where an individual would work 2 days a month and receive $7,000 or $5,000 worth of benefits in health care?





