Archived Story
Is regulation destroying economy?
Published 9:15am Friday, June 8, 2012The EPA in specific, and federal regulations in general, have been the focus of mostly Republican criticism since the election of President Obama.
The argument is that regulatory excess is hurting the U.S. economy by reducing our competitiveness internationally and by costing potential U.S. jobs due to higher consumer prices impacted by the cost of compliance.
In terms of the effect of regulatory impact against our manufacturing competitors there is little doubt that many of those competitors, particularly in less developed countries, have far fewer regulations regarding the environment than does the U.S.
The growing Chinese economy for example is still building new coal power plants with few scrubbing technology applications, expensive methods used to significantly reduce air pollution.
While many other factors, like wages, benefits, availability of materials, shipping costs and tax rates have perhaps far greater pricing influence than regulatory differences, every cost factor matters when attempting to succeed in international markets.
On the basis of such comparative factors critics do have a basis to, at the very least, focus attention on the importance of regulations applied having practical considerations as a necessity for implementation.
Some have suggested a regulatory cost impact analysis prior to regulatory approval, a method that might address, at least in part, this concern.
The other concern raised by those who suggest that regulations damage competitiveness is that the burden of “excessive” regulations, whether in health care, manufacturing, banking or auto fleet mileage standards, is that the higher the costs resulting from regulatory rules hurts jobs by raising prices for consumers.
One contemporary issue is the EPA requirements for scrubbing technology for coal supplied power plants. While the coal industry has coined the phrase “clean coal” the truth is coal is not a clean burning fuel and current technology including a final, smokestack cleaning to protect the air from a dangerous level of particulates to consumers.
Installing the technology in existing coal energy facilities is so expensive that many of these plants many close rather than convert. One Ohio energy producer has made the decision to close and built new, smaller producing, nuclear power plants.
There is a factual basis to both claims by critics of regulatory cost and economic impact. But there is a more important claim by those who advocate the necessity of regulation.
First, from an environmental standpoint, human health is more important than industry compliance costs. And, as a nation, our regulatory agencies should never place lives at risk for the simple expediency of lowering the cost of production.
Arguing that a coal plant should be allowed to place the health of the community at risk because cleaner air costs too much is not a sustainable or compelling position.
Second, regulations, though often onerous at some levels, can change health, national security and even influence social costs in a positive way. Consider the federal directive for CAFÉ fleet mileage standards, set at 35.1 mpg by 2016.
This standard will be met by that most consistent American factor, innovation. And while making higher mileage we reduce our reliance on foreign oil and lower the cost of driving for consumers. On every level the nation is better for the regulation.
Unfortunately, when Republicans claim the economy is harmed by regulations they rarely cite specific regulations, suggest alternatives that work, or address the value of regulatory compliance.
The EPA has made our air cleaner and our water safer. Banking regulations may protect us from another melt down, and CAFÉ standards have generated innovative products from America’s auto manufacturers.
Empty rhetoric against sensible regulations is not helping the national debate.
Jim Crawford is retired educator and political enthusiast living here in the Tri-State.
there is due cause for thought
———————————————————
Good luck with that. This forum is where Jim Crawford points out that “human health is more important than industry compliance costs”, so….Obama’s a socialist and a Czech writer thinks he’s a fool. It’s an ADD convention. Wingnuts here don’t want a bunch of regulations screwing up our markets. Markets are BUILT on rules and regulations, but the only rules and regulations republican leaders will tolerate are the kind that are good news for a few and really bad news for everybody else. Nobody went to jail for the mortgage mess because the rules made it legal to do things that were reckless and wrong. It’s dumb to ignore the fact that the regulations the 1% love are the ones that protect them from any and all consequences, and the ones they hate are the ones that protect everybody else. And they’re always able to convince plenty of have-nots to defend our rigged system as passionately as if they were 0ne-percenters themselves. It’s a mystery.
(Report comment)
Shouldn’t feeding your family have some value?
“rules made it legal”? No, the laws made it illegal not to loan money to someone that could not afford a three hundred thousand dollar house.
(Report comment)
Oh, and don’t tell Crawford,but——-Like all media from the beginning of time, the current establishment press refuses to accept historic truth that tells them that under all totalitarian governments the media is the first to be decimated when the storm troopers arrive and move in.
(Report comment)
Noesis; I find many of your comments, rather trite and self-centered. IndieVoter; You have been around (politically) speaking, there is due cause for thought in your comments. My comment is not intended to demean anyone’s opinion or thoughts but to cause pause for thought.
(Report comment)
Trite Mick? You find that Obambi belonging to a socialist party trite? What are you sting bitter about the Wisconsin spanking unions took?
(Report comment)
Three and a half years is an awfully long pause Mick.
(Report comment)
The EPA is vitally important to the preservation of our environment and society. Just ask the people of West Virginia, who have lived under the dominance of the Coal Barons and their self-centered interests at the expense of the people. I KNOW, THESE PEOPLE ARE MY FAMILY AND ROOTS. The Coal industry has destroyed many communities with the pollution caused by their disregard for the common good. I understand, it is comfortable to live in a community that is provided by “cheap” electricity produced at the expense of the degradation of others. I could go on and on, but the selfishness of those disinterested individuals would not be influenced.
(Report comment)
If you have ever stood beside a passing coal train Mick, you would/will get covered in coal dust, and the diesel engine likes to put out the smoke. Should shut all the trains down till they’re 100% electric, with solar panels on top.
(Report comment)
Indie:Furthermore, since when does Czechoslovakia have something relevant to say about American democracy? Are you going to quote Al Jazeera next? Maybe if North Korea has something bad to say about our President you’ll jump on their bandwagon too??
—————–
That’s pretty funny… you provided an article from the UK Guardian. You do realize that UK stands for the United Kingdom don’t you? I’m fairly certain that they aren’t one of the 57 states that Obambi was talking about.
So… you only want to use overseas articles that support your viewpoint?
Is that it?
(Report comment)
We have strayed from the subject of this article due to our own priorities. The Electoral process has just begun. There is time to scrutinize the candidates and determine which is best for our county. I feel it is a little early to pass judgement. There is still quite a bit to be made public to scrutinize. At the present time, I feel we are sadly lacking in charismatic and capable leadership on both sides of the aisle.
(Report comment)
Indie: I looked up “New Party (United States)” on Wikipedia for a non-partisan summary
—————–
You mean after democrats scubbed it clean?
Why not look at what was on their own website:
Socialist goals
The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”
The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.
Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.
—————–
And Indie… why was Obambi denying he was even a member? Didn’t he think that the facts would come out?
(Report comment)
How does one describe a person that releases military secrets for politcal gain?
Can you find an adjective for that indie?
(Report comment)
Name calling and filibusters. You are where you belong.
You go ahead and fight the battle of Lawrence County. I hope it’s enough for you when Romney wins here in the process of losing the election.
By the way, I’m starting to lose faith in the republicans turning it around for 2016. If you guys reflect the values of your party I don’t want anything to do with it.
I would, however, be glad to hear any candidates who seriously want to put America first and work in a bi-partisan manner to do what is best for my country.
(Report comment)
thinker–I would, however, be glad to hear any candidates who seriously want to put America first and work in a bi-partisan manner to do what is best for my country.
———————-
heard this from Obama in 2008. gonna try again?
scary thing is the non-thinkers will still give him their vote.
(Report comment)
Scary? Is that the new buzzword from the right?
The sad (not scary) thing is that you automatically tag Obama supporters as non-thinkers. He’s done a whole lot more good already than Bus did in his 8 years. You just think on that.
(Report comment)
LOL @ Indie… yeah, don’t you know that the private sector economy is doing just fine! Some people think that adding $5 trillion to our debt is fine also.
(Report comment)
noesis—The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.
——————–
that’s the scary part!!
(Report comment)
Hey republican, what does the Bible say about calling people fools?
(Report comment)
This quote appeared in a Czech newspaper in April of this year. I think the Czechs may be on to something …
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”
(Report comment)
Really? I give you a solid reference from an article in the UK Guardian and you give us this? I’ve googled it already so I know the answer. Let’s see if you do.
So who exactly said that? I’m sure this wasn’t just something you heard Glenn Beck talk about on his radio show (he’s still off tv, right?). I’m sure it’s not just something you read on a right-wing blog and took for the gospel without question.
So let us know the name of the person who gave that quote since you think it’s relevant.
Furthermore, since when does Czechoslovakia have something relevant to say about American democracy? Are you going to quote Al Jazeera next? Maybe if North Korea has something bad to say about our President you’ll jump on their bandwagon too??
The quote you gave is laughable. I seriously doubt that you will be able to LOOK UP the name of the person who gave it.
In fact, after looking at a few more of the search results, I found a site (pressdemocrat) where your exact comment was lifted from. It reads as follows:
—————————————————
by angryanglo » Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:20 am
This quote appeared in a Czech newspaper in April of this year. I think the Czechs may be on to something …
” The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president”.
——————————————————–
Once again, a supposed “fact” from the right-wing that prove itself to utterly lack any credibility. It’s an urban myth.
You need to rise above the level of your leaders Noesis.
(Report comment)
it’s all games these days. “Obambi.” “Socialist policies.” There’s no real thinking going on when that’s the baseline of the conversation.
——————
Why not Obambi belonged to the Socialist “New Party”.
Wouldn’t he therefore have socialist ideas?
(Report comment)
I looked up “New Party (United States)” on Wikipedia for a non-partisan summary. Guess what word isn’t mentioned there even once?
Socialism.
Do you just lift all your beliefs from right-wing blogs without question?
For the record, this short-lived regional party “ran or endorsed candidates, primarily in local non-partisan races” with their main interests being living wages and affordable housing.
(Report comment)
even if it’s something they originally proposed or something Republicans have always been for.
————
LOL, you’re funny. If one republican mentions something, all of a sudden it’s something that all republicans are for.
Guess what… Obama was for gay marriage, then against, then for… so what?
There were democrats were also against ObamaCare, there are democrats against abortion…
Understand what I’m getting at here Indie… just because a couple republicans like an idea, doesn’t mean that it’s an idea everybody likes.
And republicans refuse to endorse anything Obama endorses? Like the Bush tax cuts? I’m pretty sure they backed him on that.
I have to give you guys credit though… even if you don’t think things through:
“Republicans have opposed a lion’s share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year….”
———
OK, we gave it a try, it didn’t work and why would we want to do something again that doesn’t work and just add to the budget?
“As for 2010, that’s pretty easy to explain. America has a short attention span and little patience. Our economy was in shambles when Obama was inaugurated in 2009. Republicans, even the ones who tried to filibuster on every possible occasion, then turned around and acted like it was reasonable to expect the whole mess would be turned around in a year or two. That’s just not realistic.”
————
What isn’t realistic is your explanation. Obama didn’t try to turn the economy around the first two years. After he passed the stimulus, he was focused on Obamacare, not the economy.
Obamacare was highly unpopular with the American public. Even today the majority of voters hope it is struck down:
Some 68 percent of Americans hope the Supreme Court will strike down all or part of President Barack Obama’s health care law, while just 24 percent hope the high court will uphold Obamacare, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.
Did you catch that Indie? Almost 7 out of 10 Americans think Obama did the wrong thing!
And THOSE types of policies/changes to America is what republicans were talking about when they said it was their job to make Oblunder a one term president.
“Just enjoy yourself between now and November…”
———
Oh, I plan to. Obambi’s lead is just down to 1% and we have months to go.
President Romney… has a nice ring to it. I’m sure England, Poland and other countries will be glad when we get a real president in the office instead of an empty suit.
(Report comment)
You didn’t rebut the article Noesis. You ignore the fact that Republicans refuse to accept anything Obama endorses, even if it’s something they originally proposed or something Republicans have always been for.
Or, as it was stated in the article…
“Republicans have opposed a lion’s share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they’re the plague.”
As for 2010, that’s pretty easy to explain. America has a short attention span and little patience. Our economy was in shambles when Obama was inaugurated in 2009. Republicans, even the ones who tried to filibuster on every possible occasion, then turned around and acted like it was reasonable to expect the whole mess would be turned around in a year or two. That’s just not realistic.
It’s all games these days. “Obambi.” “Socialist policies.” There’s no real thinking going on when that’s the baseline of the conversation.
Just enjoy yourself between now and November. Obama won’t carry Lawrence County but he doesn’t need to. I could come back here the day after the election and rub it in but don’t need to. Obama would like to work across the aisle as he leads the country for the next four years but he won’t need to. Next four years he won’t sit back and let Republicans in congress drag their feet at the country’s expense. He will find a way around them.
(Report comment)
Nobody here can give a meaningful rebuttal of that article. You might criticize it, but you can’t rebut it.
———
Want to bet?
It’s democrats who refuse to pass any bipartisan bills that the House passes. They won’t even allow a vote on the bills. Can’t let republicans get any credit for creating jobs now can we?
The “jobs bills” that democrats want to pass is just more stimulus spending that didn’t work the first time. How is sustainable jobs going to be created when you are hiring teacher, firefighters, police for a year?
And Indie… I’m still waiting for a liberal to explain what happened in the Nov 2010 elections.
Obambi gave us ObamaCare and this is the thanks that the American Voters give him? They give democrats the worst beating they experienced in the past 38 years? What’s up with that? Could it be that the voters didn’t like his socialist policies?
Where did he get those socialist ideas from? Was it when he was a member of the socialist “New Party”?
(Report comment)
It’s good to see where your loyalty lies. For the record, here’s the entirety of the paragraph he pasted below.
“In the end, that might be the worst part of all – one of two major political parties in America is engaging in scorched-earth economic policies that are undercutting the economic recovery, possibly on purpose, and is forcing job-killing austerity measures on the states. And they have paid absolutely no political price for doing so. If anything, it won them control of the House in 2010, and has kept win Obama’s approval ratings in the political danger zone. It might even help them get control of the White House.” – UK Guardian
(Report comment)
If anything, it won them control of the House in 2010, and has kept win Obama’s approval ratings in the political danger zone. It might even help them get control of the White House.–UK Guardian
————-
I hope!!
(Report comment)
What is destroying the US economy?
Just google “Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?” to read the article in yesterday’s UK Guardian.
Nobody here can give a meaningful rebuttal of that article. You might criticize it, but you can’t rebut it.
(Report comment)
When the EPA tries to pass regulations making milk spills the same as oil spills, somebody has waaay too much free time on their hands.
(Report comment)
Agency (EPA) Region 1 Administrator Curtis Spalding.
In his speech at Yale University, Mr. Spalding stated that implementing the Obama Administration’s radical “green” agenda was more important than destroying communities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other states like my home state of Kentucky.
But this was no speech by a “rogue” bureaucrat.
You see, just recently, another Administrator, Al Armendariz, glowingly compared the agencies regulation enforcement to Roman crucifixions.
And before he was President, candidate Obama famously stated that while business owners were free to attempt to build a coal plant, government bureaucrats would bankrupt them with greenhouse gas fees.
This war on coal is being waged not just on the industry, but on the communities and individuals who depend on coal for their livelihood.
Back home in Kentucky, the EPA has placed a hold on 36 coal mining permits. Millions of dollars in revenue and nearly 4,000 jobs have been lost because the EPA wants to squeeze the life out of the coal industry in favor of their pet green energy companies.–Rand Paul
(Report comment)
Mick-Obama/EPA is costing thousands of jobs in W.VA. and Kentucky. Tell it to the people that have just recently lost their jobs. If epa had cost you your job while you were working for the railroad you wouldn’t have been supportive of them.
Yes we need an agency like the epa, it has been good for the environment, but they are completely out of hand and stay too far ahead of technology,especially now while we’re in a depression.
To quote a non-engineer uncle of mine “engineers are amazing at inventing things, but it takes someone like me to show them what you can do with their new invented thing”. He supervised the construction of radar systems for air traffic control.
(Report comment)
I have the utmost respect and admiration for the EPA and it’s efforts for the betterment of the environment and “we the people”. Without this watchdog, we and the environment would suffer much more severely at the hands of unregulated Corporate interests. As Jim Crawford so aptly pointed out, abject criticism is without merit if constructive solutions are not put forward.
(Report comment)
“The president must be on another planet,” Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Fox News. “You saw job figures last Friday, completely disconnected from reality.”
(Report comment)
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) are regulations in the United States, first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975,[1] and intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the US in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per US gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the US. If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer’s annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer’s total production for the U.S. domestic market. In addition, a Gas Guzzler Tax is levied on individual passenger car models (but not trucks, vans, minivans, or SUVs) that get less than 22.5 miles per US gallon (10.5 l/100 km).[2]-wikepedia
—————————————–
Only exception I have is “mfr must pay penalty”, of course this penalty is paid by the tax payer no matter what vehicle he/she would buy.
We have to pay someone in washington to enforce this rule plus we pay again at the new car dealership.
(Report comment)