Writing at The American Spectator, Quin Hillyer previews an expansive regulatory agenda the Obama Administration is likely to pursue even more aggressively in the wake of the November elections. The reasonable thesis: If the Legislative Branch will not write economy-choking laws, then the Executive Branch will accomplish the same through regulation.

From “Not Triangulation but Regulation“:

Obama’s promised “hand-to-hand combat” will increasingly pit executive overreach versus constitutional legislative authority. Republican congressmen understand this, and the Pledge to America includes support for a bill that would block any new “major rule” promulgated by federal agencies until the rule is approved by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president. Of course, President Obama would kill that bill with one of the quickest vetoes imaginable.

Former House Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston of Louisiana suggested another solution in a recent Wall Street Journal column. Just insert language in necessary spending bills that specifies that “none of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be used for… [whatever Congress wants to block].”

Obama can’t regulate if he can’t pay the regulators. But unless newly empowered congressional Republicans challenge him, he’ll regulate all of us half to death. 

The power of appropriating — or not appropriating — is shaping up to be the House’s primary point of leverage in the 112th Congress, with implementation of the new health care law being the biggest battle. The omnibus spending bill that Senate Majority Leader Reid was forced to pull included $1 billion for health care funding.

P.S. In surveying the Administration’s various regulatory focii, Hillyer cites Rosario Palmieri and Keith Smith of the National Association of Manufacturers on their areas of expertise, regulatory policy and labor policy, respectively. Thank you.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) spoke today at an American Spectator/Americans for Tax Reform newsmaker luncheon today, with Heritage Foundation blogging guests also on hand.

Boehner and 10 Republican freshmen returned this week from an energy-oriented trip to Colorado and Alaska, and today’s session concentrated on energy issues.

The leader’s arguments:

• The majority of the public favors additional domestic energy supply, i.e. drilling.
• Clear majorities exist in both the House and Senate for pro-supply measures. In the House, Democratic leadership therefore prevents votes on legislation. 
• House Republicans intend to try to force votes, but it’s unclear whether the strategy will succeed.
• Republicans also intend to make energy a campaign issue this fall.

We’ll let the partisan politics speak for itself, although yes, it does seem like pro-energy supply bills would pass if allowed to come to a straight up-and-down vote.

A good question came from Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity. Kerpen cited the EPA’s recent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the regulation of greenhouse gases, alluding to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. Kerpen asked whether Congressional policymaking on energy isn’t ultimately moot if the EPA regulates carbon dioxide under the 1970 Clean Air Act, and whether Congress might respond in some fashion, perhaps a rider on the continuing resolution. 

Boehner:

First you have to remember that the Democrats control the Congress, and you’ve seen their willingness to give us an opportunity to amend their appropriations bills, or for that matter, almost any bill.

If I had my way I would make it clear that CO2 is not the enemy, because under that court ruling, we’d have Fish & Wildlife Service and EPA in charge of every CO2 permit in America. I think it’s going to become very evident by this time next year in Congress that if they haven’t acted, they’re going to have to act. But I see no evidence on the part of the Democrat majority in the House and Senate to address the issue.

Kerpen wrote a column highlighting the regulatory implications (dangers) of the EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “The EPA’s Blueprint for Disaster.”

UPDATE: (4:20 p.m.) A good, brief account of today’s session from David Weigel at Reason.