It was easy to miss, but OMB demolishes the GOP’s deregulatory claims.
For instance, why would the Environmental Protection Agency close a program investigating the effects of toxins on children’s health? Is there some evidence that the money is wasted or poorly spent? Why would the EPA allow more unregulated disposal of toxic coal ash? Don’t people in coal regions deserve clean air and water? Is there any reason to think coal ash is currently well-regulated?
These questions barely come up anymore. Republicans oppose regulations because they are regulations; it’s become reflexive, both for the party and for the media the covers them.
OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:
Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion
By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.
According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.
Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations
- dbackjon
- Moderator Team
- Posts: 45610
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
- I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
- A.K.A.: He/Him
- Location: Scottsdale
Re: Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations
There is no coherent policy justification for Trump’s deregulatory frenzy
If the GOP wants to explicitly align itself behind the interests of particular polluting businesses and against the broader public interest, well, it can. If it doesn’t think the costs to industry of reducing pollution are worth much larger benefits to public health, it can say so. If it wants to transfer wealth back from the public to industrialists by reversing all of Obama’s rules, that is its right as the party in power.
But GOP lawmakers shouldn’t be allowed to simply burp up the words “burdensome” and “job-killing” and move on. The OMB finds no evidence that federal regulations have any noticeable impact on aggregate national employment or economic growth. There is evidence that they produce public benefits well in excess of their costs.
If EPA head Scott Pruitt wants to say that defending children from toxics or rural communities from coal ash pollution is burdensome, he ought to offer some numbers, or evidence, or ... something. Goofy homilies are not enough. (His latest claim is that the Bible recommends the deregulatory agenda.)
If the GOP wants to explicitly align itself behind the interests of particular polluting businesses and against the broader public interest, well, it can. If it doesn’t think the costs to industry of reducing pollution are worth much larger benefits to public health, it can say so. If it wants to transfer wealth back from the public to industrialists by reversing all of Obama’s rules, that is its right as the party in power.
But GOP lawmakers shouldn’t be allowed to simply burp up the words “burdensome” and “job-killing” and move on. The OMB finds no evidence that federal regulations have any noticeable impact on aggregate national employment or economic growth. There is evidence that they produce public benefits well in excess of their costs.
If EPA head Scott Pruitt wants to say that defending children from toxics or rural communities from coal ash pollution is burdensome, he ought to offer some numbers, or evidence, or ... something. Goofy homilies are not enough. (His latest claim is that the Bible recommends the deregulatory agenda.)
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18062
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations
Both parties share in this. The Dems are the mirror opposite of the GOP on many issues, and this is just one area. Where the GOP is mistakenly reflexive in opposing most any regulation, the Dems are just as reflexive to support a regulation. The OMB is a poor measure of effectiveness - they try, but trying to make it objective isn't always successful. Anyone from the GOP would be insane to argue that base regulations, like the Clean Water Act, aren't both necessary and useful. And they do argue just that. But Dems are in the same boat when they assume that since the foundation regulation was good, that any tweaking to add more to it is also good. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Hard to get down to the details when both parties argue about headlines rather than details.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- JohnStOnge
- Egalitarian
- Posts: 20314
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
- I am a fan of: McNeese State
- A.K.A.: JohnStOnge
Re: Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations
All I can say is that I think this is a time bomb for the Republicans. I do think they are slashing regulations in an irrational way. And I think that thing about saying you have to eliminate two existing regulations for each one new regulation is REALLY stupid.
I think it's a time bomb because I think that, inevitably, there is going to be some big adverse observation or event that's going to be such that people can associate it with what Trump is doing. Like for instance something happening associated with the disposal of toxic coal ash. And when it happens people are going to blame it on what Trump is doing right now.
I am a person who believes that regulations are out of control. I have long believed that no regulation should go into effect unless Congress signs off on it. But it's just plain dumb to start slashing regulation just for the sake of slashing regulation and/or saying that two existing regulations have to be eliminated before any new regulation can be promulgated.
I think it's a time bomb because I think that, inevitably, there is going to be some big adverse observation or event that's going to be such that people can associate it with what Trump is doing. Like for instance something happening associated with the disposal of toxic coal ash. And when it happens people are going to blame it on what Trump is doing right now.
I am a person who believes that regulations are out of control. I have long believed that no regulation should go into effect unless Congress signs off on it. But it's just plain dumb to start slashing regulation just for the sake of slashing regulation and/or saying that two existing regulations have to be eliminated before any new regulation can be promulgated.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?
Deep Purple: No One Came
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?
Deep Purple: No One Came
- JohnStOnge
- Egalitarian
- Posts: 20314
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
- I am a fan of: McNeese State
- A.K.A.: JohnStOnge
Re: Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations
BTW we have to have regulations. Congress writes laws broadly and leaves regulatory agencies no choice. Like for instance the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act Section 402.(a)(4) says that "A food shall be deemed to be adulterated...if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health; "
The FDA is charged by the Food Drug & Cosmetics Act with deciding whether or not those conditions are met. It has to promulgate regulations to describe what is necessary to avoid creating them. Obviously, there is no such thing as a situation in which we can't say that a food MAY have become contaminated, etc. The FDA has to decide on just how much probability is associated with the "may."
As I said I think Congress ought to have to sign off on all regulations to make sure they are consistent with Congressional intent. But this thing where Trump is doing this show type thing of slashing regulations just so he can say he's slashing regulations isn't the ticket.
The FDA is charged by the Food Drug & Cosmetics Act with deciding whether or not those conditions are met. It has to promulgate regulations to describe what is necessary to avoid creating them. Obviously, there is no such thing as a situation in which we can't say that a food MAY have become contaminated, etc. The FDA has to decide on just how much probability is associated with the "may."
As I said I think Congress ought to have to sign off on all regulations to make sure they are consistent with Congressional intent. But this thing where Trump is doing this show type thing of slashing regulations just so he can say he's slashing regulations isn't the ticket.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?
Deep Purple: No One Came
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?
Deep Purple: No One Came
Re: Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations
I deal with the CFR on a daily basis. It's what I do now, now that I'm out of Acquisition and into Acquisition Policy.
Yes, the 2 for 1 rule has just become a big game. Now when we need a new regulation, we just count it as one and then instead of getting rid of two regulations, we'll cut two (or four, or six, whatever) passages from one existing regulation and call it two cuts.
Yes, the 2 for 1 rule has just become a big game. Now when we need a new regulation, we just count it as one and then instead of getting rid of two regulations, we'll cut two (or four, or six, whatever) passages from one existing regulation and call it two cuts.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59459
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations
Agreed and ironically in the long run, over-regulation including living wage mandates hurt small, Mom and pop businesses too as large corporations can absorb the costs more easily.GannonFan wrote:Both parties share in this. The Dems are the mirror opposite of the GOP on many issues, and this is just one area. Where the GOP is mistakenly reflexive in opposing most any regulation, the Dems are just as reflexive to support a regulation. The OMB is a poor measure of effectiveness - they try, but trying to make it objective isn't always successful. Anyone from the GOP would be insane to argue that base regulations, like the Clean Water Act, aren't both necessary and useful. And they do argue just that. But Dems are in the same boat when they assume that since the foundation regulation was good, that any tweaking to add more to it is also good. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Hard to get down to the details when both parties argue about headlines rather than details.
Current federal, state, and local regulations from payroll tax liabilities to health codes are nearly impossible for a small business to comply with. It’s just a matter of time before an agency comes and shakes you down for some penalties.
- JohnStOnge
- Egalitarian
- Posts: 20314
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
- I am a fan of: McNeese State
- A.K.A.: JohnStOnge
Re: Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations
Since I used the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act to illustrate something before, I'll use it again. Here is some language from Chapter IV, Section 401:
If there isn't enough control on Regulation it's not the regulatory agencies' fault. It's the Congresses that wrote the laws and the Presidents that signed the legislation. If the desire is to do something to make sure regulations don't go over board Congress needs to establish a process whereby it makes sure it agrees with proposed regulations and signs off. Don't tell the regulatory agencies they have to promulgate regulations and that THEY have to decide upon what's reasonable, ect., then bitch about it when they do.
Ok so that's a mundane thing. But look what it does. It tells the FDA they have to use their own judgment. They have to decide what a "reasonable" standard of identity, etc., is. It's not optional. That's a mandate from Congress that they do it.Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the
interest of consumers, he shall promulgate regulations fixing and establishing for any food, under its common or usual name so far as practicable, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a reasonable standard of quality, or reasonable standards of fill of container.
If there isn't enough control on Regulation it's not the regulatory agencies' fault. It's the Congresses that wrote the laws and the Presidents that signed the legislation. If the desire is to do something to make sure regulations don't go over board Congress needs to establish a process whereby it makes sure it agrees with proposed regulations and signs off. Don't tell the regulatory agencies they have to promulgate regulations and that THEY have to decide upon what's reasonable, ect., then bitch about it when they do.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?
Deep Purple: No One Came
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?
Deep Purple: No One Came