Kerby Anderson
“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” That’s a phrase we often use that has been attributed to Everett Dirksen, though it is doubtful he ever said it. But let me suggest a variation of it. “A regulation here, and a regulation there, and soon you are talking about real money.”
Over the years, I have talked about the economic costs of more and more regulations. Recently, a consumer watchdog organization calculated the cost of this administration’s climate regulations. The estimated cost was over $9,000.
The Alliance for Consumers put together an infographic with the title: “Biden’s Dream House.” Price tags were attached to household appliances calculated using the administration’s energy standards and climate regulations. Those regulations will make appliances more expensive.
As I mentioned in a previous commentary, the Biden administration regulations would require that 90 percent of gas stoves would have to be redesigned. The consumer watchdog group estimated that would raise the upfront cost of stove products by as much as $3,250.
Rules targeting air-conditioning refrigerants would raise the cost of air-conditioning units by $1,100. New energy standards for water heaters would raise the price another $2,800. Gas furnace efficiency standards are supposed to reduce greenhouse emissions but will add an additional $494 to the cost.
This administration wants to regulate every aspect of our lives with little regard to the overall cost. Many government regulations are necessary, but they must be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. I doubt you have an additional $9,000 laying around ready to spend on appliances that were made more expensive by these government regulations.

Kerby Anderson
The latest controversy at the United Nations over comments by the Secretary-General is a reminder of how many times the UN has taken an anti-Israel stance. Senator Ted Cruz believes the Secretary-General should resign and adds that “many aspects of the UN, like the Human Rights Council and UNRWA are either antisemitic or give cover for terrorism or both.”
While there may be some debate about the recent comments, they come after decades of false accusations against Jews in general and Israel in particular. For example, the 1975 UN resolution passed by a majority of UN member states equated Zionism (the founding philosophy of the state of Israel) with racism. The resolution eventually was overturned but was used to justify actions against Israel.
Back in the 1980s, New York Mayor Ed Koch referred to the UN as a cesspool. That was when the UN passed an anti-Israel resolution because the country occupied the Golan Heights to prevent rockets from being launched into northern Israel.
The late Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Abba Eban once joked, “If Algeria introduced a UN resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”
As I mentioned in my booklet on antisemitism, always blaming Israel is irrational. “Israel is about the size of New Jersey and is surrounded by Arab countries with more than 500 times the land area.”
Israel realized long ago that it could not depend upon the United Nations to defend it. This latest controversy with the UN is just another reminder of that fact.