Shooting Ourselves:
How the United States is destroying our own economy with too many needless regulations
mi
While perhaps not as
intellectually and morally challenging as the life and death debate over
our species role in relation to the rest of the planet, the discussion
of the scope and efficacy of government regulations as they relate to
jobs and the economy is clearly the more critical one to be having
right now. In the midst of this terrible recession, having an honest and
open conversation about the regulatory impact of an overzealous
government on job creation should rightfully take center stage. Now,
more than ever before, we must swallow the red pill and face reality when it comes to the cost/benefit consequences of existing and proposed regulations.
The economy has become so stagnant and unemployment so rampant and long
lasting that we must ask whether the desired and presumably well
intentioned goals of progressives are worth their cost to the economy.
In other words is zero water so much better than Britta that it is worth
losing jobs over.
For instance, no one doubts that in the aftermath of the Enron scandal, more stringent regulation of business and accounting practices was warranted. However, the Sarbanes/Oxley law that was passed in response to this need has crippled parts of our economy unnecessarily. Because of this law and its overkill of regulations on accounting, far fewer companies are willing to undergo the anal exam that is now reequired in order to launch Initial Public Offerings. Many of those companies are choosing, instead, to list on foreign exchanges. Thus, Sarbanes/Oxley has put a squeeze on the capitalization of just the kinds of companies that we need to grow and prosper if we want to produce new and permanent jobs for the unemployed. Some believe that the regulations this bill mandated for mark to market accounting was a critical factor in wiping out Bear Stearns and Shearson Lehman and was a primary cause for the financial meltdown that caused our economic mess. How's that for an unintended consequence?
2=====================================================================================================
Similarly, the Dodd/Frank legislation that was proposed in response to the sub-prime crisis is seriously flawed and is proving to be a major drag on lending by banks to small business. How it was that the two politicians most responsible for the lack of oversight of the banking and mortgage industry and the biggest proponents of subprime loans were allowed to write the reform law is beyond me. But that's Democrats for ya. That they had the audacity to claim they "reformed" the system without even touching Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the agencies most responsible for the calamity that befell us is typical of why so many of us consider politicians to be nothing more than Crooks and Thieves.
However, despite their claim of "reform", one of the main consequences of Dodd/Frank are that it enshrines the concept of "too big to fail" into law and amazingly allows the government to take over these institutions any time they deem they are in "trouble". I won't even go into how dangerous the constitutional implications of this are or how scary the idea is that government believes it has the right to take over a private company on a whim without having to go before a judge or a legislature. It is irrelevant why they want to. It only matters that they think they have that kind of tyrannical power over private businesses and property.
While this constitutional overreach is troubling, what really boggles the mind is that as a result of the law, the new requirements and regulations placed on banks has fallen much heavier on the smaller ones than the larger ones who have more capital, lawyers and paper pushers to help them comply. Even though the regulators aren't even close to finishing codifying all the rules of this monstrosity of legislation, it has already been estimated that Dodd/Frank will place a major strain on every financial institution in the country to comply, particularly small banks:
For instance, no one doubts that in the aftermath of the Enron scandal, more stringent regulation of business and accounting practices was warranted. However, the Sarbanes/Oxley law that was passed in response to this need has crippled parts of our economy unnecessarily. Because of this law and its overkill of regulations on accounting, far fewer companies are willing to undergo the anal exam that is now reequired in order to launch Initial Public Offerings. Many of those companies are choosing, instead, to list on foreign exchanges. Thus, Sarbanes/Oxley has put a squeeze on the capitalization of just the kinds of companies that we need to grow and prosper if we want to produce new and permanent jobs for the unemployed. Some believe that the regulations this bill mandated for mark to market accounting was a critical factor in wiping out Bear Stearns and Shearson Lehman and was a primary cause for the financial meltdown that caused our economic mess. How's that for an unintended consequence?
2=====================================================================================================
Similarly, the Dodd/Frank legislation that was proposed in response to the sub-prime crisis is seriously flawed and is proving to be a major drag on lending by banks to small business. How it was that the two politicians most responsible for the lack of oversight of the banking and mortgage industry and the biggest proponents of subprime loans were allowed to write the reform law is beyond me. But that's Democrats for ya. That they had the audacity to claim they "reformed" the system without even touching Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the agencies most responsible for the calamity that befell us is typical of why so many of us consider politicians to be nothing more than Crooks and Thieves.
However, despite their claim of "reform", one of the main consequences of Dodd/Frank are that it enshrines the concept of "too big to fail" into law and amazingly allows the government to take over these institutions any time they deem they are in "trouble". I won't even go into how dangerous the constitutional implications of this are or how scary the idea is that government believes it has the right to take over a private company on a whim without having to go before a judge or a legislature. It is irrelevant why they want to. It only matters that they think they have that kind of tyrannical power over private businesses and property.
While this constitutional overreach is troubling, what really boggles the mind is that as a result of the law, the new requirements and regulations placed on banks has fallen much heavier on the smaller ones than the larger ones who have more capital, lawyers and paper pushers to help them comply. Even though the regulators aren't even close to finishing codifying all the rules of this monstrosity of legislation, it has already been estimated that Dodd/Frank will place a major strain on every financial institution in the country to comply, particularly small banks:
The result of this have been twofold. First, it has clearly made both smaller banks and larger banks less willing to lend to business because the risk is no longer seen worthwhile. Second, by putting the squeeze on smaller banks, the larger ones are growing in size and power and, as they consolidate the market, they become so large that they become literally "too big to fail" and we will have to bail them out the next time they bollix things up. In so doing, we have unwittingly created the seeds for the next crisis to come.
3=====================================================================================================
The point I am making is not that we didn't need to change capitalization ratios or hire more regulators to make sure that banks and investment companies were complying with existing law, but that instead of dealing directly with the problem at hand and designing laws to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again, Democrats decided that we needed a 2000 page bill that deals with virtually every aspect of the financial system. It is so complex and unwieldy that even to this day, no one is quite sure of all of the ramifications of the new laws and regulations. Worse, the legislation was written by politicians in bed with special interests. Do you really think that your Congressman or Senator is that well educated on the intricacies of high finance that they understood the bill they were voting on? Of course not. They all took a flyer that Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, two of the greatest villains from the subprime meltdown, knew what they were doing when they wrote this massive piece of legislation. Never can I remember a more classic case of the lunatics running the asylum.
Predictably, we are already feeling the negative effect of Dodd/Frank on the economy. Small businesses are having a hard time getting loans and other rules and regulations that have nothing to with the subprime and financial crisis are causing banks to lay off workers:
3=====================================================================================================
The point I am making is not that we didn't need to change capitalization ratios or hire more regulators to make sure that banks and investment companies were complying with existing law, but that instead of dealing directly with the problem at hand and designing laws to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again, Democrats decided that we needed a 2000 page bill that deals with virtually every aspect of the financial system. It is so complex and unwieldy that even to this day, no one is quite sure of all of the ramifications of the new laws and regulations. Worse, the legislation was written by politicians in bed with special interests. Do you really think that your Congressman or Senator is that well educated on the intricacies of high finance that they understood the bill they were voting on? Of course not. They all took a flyer that Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, two of the greatest villains from the subprime meltdown, knew what they were doing when they wrote this massive piece of legislation. Never can I remember a more classic case of the lunatics running the asylum.
Predictably, we are already feeling the negative effect of Dodd/Frank on the economy. Small businesses are having a hard time getting loans and other rules and regulations that have nothing to with the subprime and financial crisis are causing banks to lay off workers:
4=====================================================================================================
Don't get me wrong, when Republicans ran the Congress, they were guilty of many of the same things. It is the nature of someone who is a legislator to want to legislate. I fully understand that. However, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Donkey party has an unshakeable faith that no matter what kinds of rules and regulations they enact, the private sector will be able to take them in stride from their supposedly inexhaustible well of profits. Clearly they did not foresee that their regulations would have this kind of negative impact on employment and economic growth. Even at a time when the President and his party claim that jobs are the most important issue in America and the President is going around endlessly beseeching the country to pass his jobs program:
Don't get me wrong, when Republicans ran the Congress, they were guilty of many of the same things. It is the nature of someone who is a legislator to want to legislate. I fully understand that. However, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Donkey party has an unshakeable faith that no matter what kinds of rules and regulations they enact, the private sector will be able to take them in stride from their supposedly inexhaustible well of profits. Clearly they did not foresee that their regulations would have this kind of negative impact on employment and economic growth. Even at a time when the President and his party claim that jobs are the most important issue in America and the President is going around endlessly beseeching the country to pass his jobs program:
They still have yet to figure out that there is a critical correlation between regulations and economic/job growth. To hear the President tell it, all of the regulations he and his Democratic allies have passed and are threatening to enact, like the EPA's greenhouse gas restrictions, aren't causing uncertainty that is slowing he economy. That is just a ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated assertion in his world. It is business that is the cause of the slow economy and they need to step up:
This massive disconnect, between the every day reality of the businessman in the video who wants to expand but can't get a loan because of over regulation and the ivory tower worldview of Obama who does not seem to grasp that the regulatory climate he has fostered has hurt the economy, could not be more stark. The reality gap between a man who has learned everything he knows about economics in the halls of academe and said he felt like a "spy behind enemy lines" in the only private sector job he ever so briefly held and those who are forced to deal with the hard cold bottom line of the business world couldn't be greater. Even Jim Cramer, an Obama supporter in '08 is forced to admit this:
Despite businessmen and farmers screaming as loud as they can for three years that regulations passed by the Democrats and future rules proposed by the administration are stifling business and job growth, Obama utterly rejects that reality.
5=====================================================================================================
Recently, the President went on a "listening" tour of the Midwest to reconnect with voters. Watch him tell a farmer worried about the cost and burdens of new federal legislation on farming that his fears are unfounded:
5=====================================================================================================
Recently, the President went on a "listening" tour of the Midwest to reconnect with voters. Watch him tell a farmer worried about the cost and burdens of new federal legislation on farming that his fears are unfounded:
Rather than listen to the farmer and ask him questions about how current regulations and paperwork were inhibiting his ability to farm, Obama treats him as a gullible, uneducated hick whose fears about future regulations are "unfounded" and who is being gulled by slick Washington lobbyists. That the farmer is complaining that his current load of regulation is too burdendsome is totally irrelevant to the One. In Obama's fantasy world it is just not possible that there are too many rules and regulations coming from his administration. Therefore, it cannot be as bad as what the farmer is complaining about. Ergo, the farmer is misinformed and ignorant.
Let's see, who would have more knowledge about how regulations are killing the agricultural sector, a farmer who deals with it every day or a President who has probably never held a farm implement in his life? Well, when it comes to the ridiculous anti-dust regulations, it turns out that this is something that the EPA has been forced to examine as part of a five year review mandated by the Clean Air Act. Currently, they claim they have no intention of extending the currently restrictive dust laws of Arizona to say Oklahoma:
Let's see, who would have more knowledge about how regulations are killing the agricultural sector, a farmer who deals with it every day or a President who has probably never held a farm implement in his life? Well, when it comes to the ridiculous anti-dust regulations, it turns out that this is something that the EPA has been forced to examine as part of a five year review mandated by the Clean Air Act. Currently, they claim they have no intention of extending the currently restrictive dust laws of Arizona to say Oklahoma:
Now perhaps Channel 9 News and the Oklahoma Farm Bureau are getting their panties in a bunch unnecessarily because the EPA hasn't yet finalized their decision on this issue, but the government clearly has the power and the statutory authority to mandate these regulations and the likelihood of it happening is not so far fetched to 21 Senators that they felt compelled to write a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to halt it. The House of Representatives even felt it necessary to pass legislation banning the EPA from making this ruling:
6=====================================================================================================
However, if we listen to the President, all these people are being conned by staffers and lobbyists and, if they doubt that this is so, Barry declares that the way a farmer can find out is to call the Agriculture Department. Well, lo and behold, a reporter from Politico tried to do just that:
Here's a rundown of what happened when I started by calling USDA's general hotline to inquire about information related to the effects of noise and dust pollution rules on Illinois farmers:
Wednesday, 2:40 p.m. ET: After calling the USDA’s main line, I am told to call the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Here, I am patched through to a man who is identified as being in charge of "support services." I leave a message.
3:53 p.m.: The man calls me back and recommends in a voicemail message that I call the Illinois Farm Bureau -- a non-governmental organization.
4:02 p.m.: A woman at the Illinois Farm Bureau connects me to someone in the organization’s government affairs department. That person tells me they "don't quite know who to refer you to."
4:06 p.m.: I call the Illinois Department of Agriculture again, letting the person I spoke with earlier know that calling the Illinois Farm Bureau had not been fruitful. He says "those are the kinds of groups that are kind of on top of this or kind of follow things like this. We deal with pesticide here in our bureau."
"You only deal with pesticides?" I ask.
"We deal with other things … but we mainly deal with pesticides here," he said, and gives me the phone number for the office of the department’s director, where he says there are "policy people" as well as the director's staff.
4:10 p.m.: Someone at the director's office transfers me to the agriculture products inspection department, where a woman says their branch deals with things like animal feed, seed and fertilizer.
"I'm going to transfer you to one of the guys at environmental programs."
4:15 p.m.: I reach the answering machine at the environmental programs department, and leave a message.
4:57 p.m.: A man from the environmental programs department gets back to me: "I hate to be the regular state worker that's always accused of passing the buck, but noise and dust regulation would be under our environmental protection agency, rather than the Agriculture Department," he says, adding that he has forwarded my name and number to the agriculture adviser at IEPA.
On Thursday morning, POLITICO started the hunt for an answer again, this time calling the USDA's local office in Henry County, Ill., where the town hall took place.
9:42 a.m.: Asked if someone at the office might be able to provide me with the information I requested, the woman on the phone responds, “Not right now. We may have to actually look that up -- did you Google this or anything?”
When I say that I’m a reporter and would like to discuss my experience with someone who handles media relations there, I am referred to the USDA’s state office in Champaign. I leave a message there.
10:40 a.m.: A spokeswoman for the Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service calls me, to whom I explain my multiple attempts on Wednesday and Thursday to retrieve the information I was looking for.
“What I can tell you is our particular agency does not deal with regulations,” she tells me. “We deal with volunteers who voluntarily want to do things. I think the reason you got that response from the Cambridge office is because in regard to noise and dust regulation, we don’t have anything to do with that.”
She adds that the EPA would be more capable of answering questions regarding regulations.
Finally, I call the USDA’s main media relations department, based here in Washington, where I explain to a spokesperson about my failed attempts to obtain an answer to the Illinois farmer’s question. This was their response, via email:
“Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the Administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.”
Now this isn't some rube farmer making these phone calls, this is a seasoned reporter from the big city and she can't find out a blessed thing. If you are a farmer or an employer looking to make sure you are in compliance with whatever the newest diktat that has come from on high, this is typical of what happens when you try to find important and timely information from federal bureaucrats. In the real world that farmers and businesses live in, "good enough for government work" just doesn't cut it. As it turns out,the Agriculture department doesn't oversee the regulations the farmer complained to the President about. So, all calls placed to them as recommended by Obama would result in a two day run around. Thanks for the help Barry!
7=====================================================================================================
In actuality, dust rules and water run off are regulated by the EPA and Noise Pollution is regulated by OSHA. It isn't that the President is expected to actually know this, but if Obama doesn't know himself, he shouldn't be so dismissive of the farmer who is clearly concerned about how much time he is spending complying with regulations and filling out paperwork. Earth to Barry! It is totally irrelevant whether the farmer can cite the particular rules are that are being "discussed" or that are currently causing him problems. This isn't a political debate. This is a listening tour for crying out loud. If you listen to what the farmer is trying to tell you, you might learn that the incredible amount of time and money it takes to comply with all of the current regulations are just too much for him to deal with. Therefore, the prospect of even more coming down the pike scares the heck out of him. The fact that a farmer can't start his day in his tractor because the reality of his life is that he is inundated with red tape should be enough to at least get a respectful hearing and an understanding nod from his President. Instead, the One dismisses the complaint as unfounded and sniffs that it is merely the result of lobbyist ginning up gullible hicks like him. Some listening, eh?
The truth is that President Obama and his people don't seem to have a clue about how things actually work down on the farm. Think about this. President Empty Suit has never held a real job in the private sector or met a payroll in his life, yet he has the audacity to lecture business that this "uncertainty" they are worried about is nonsense and that they need to "step up" and create jobs. Then Obama tells a farmer that his concerns are not valid. After all, he recently signed an executive order which demanded all federal agencies cut regulations and do cost/benefit analyses. But is that really the case, Mr. President?
Well according to Eric Posner the leftist University of Chicago law professor who was a colleague and friend of both regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and President Obama, the new executive order was designed to make it look like the administration is serious about doing cost/benefit analysis, but:
the executive order also provides plenty of wiggle room that can be exploited by pro-regulatory forces, as indeed did Clinton’s before it. Unlike Reagan’s original order, which simply asked agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis, Clinton’s allowed agencies also to take account of “equity.” Obama’s adds that agencies should take account of “human dignity” and “fairness,” values, it helpfully notes, that are “difficult or impossible to quantify.” This is problematic because quantification is the point of cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis works in the first place only because it imposes mathematical discipline on agencies. They must supply evidence that a proposed regulation has certain benefits and costs, monetize those benefits and costs, and report a number. If the number is greater than zero, then the agency may regulate. If agencies can instead point to unquantifiable benefits such as the promotion of human dignity, they can do whatever they want, and the main selling point of cost-benefit analysis—government transparency—is eliminated.
These wiggle words might be sops to the left, or they might be licenses to agencies to regulate however they want to. Everything depends on how the executive order is implemented, as is so often the case in the law. Indeed, although Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr., all operated under essentially the same cost-benefit executive order, Clinton’s regulatory agenda was more aggressive than that of the three Republican presidents. And academic research has shown that many of the cost-benefit analyses issued under all administrations were shoddy; in fact, there is little evidence that the introduction of cost-benefit analysis has improved the quality of regulations. The reason is that courts do not usually force agencies to comply with cost-benefit analyses, so unless the president steps in, the agency can do what it wants.
There you see, the agencies should take into account "human dignity" and "fairness" values as part of the analysis of benefits. Since those are unquantifiable, the agencies can always use those factors to determine that any proposed rule is worth the cost. Unless, that is, the man who wrote the executive order with holes big enough to drive a truck through were to step in. So, you see, Mr. farmer man, no need to worry about noise and dust rules, unless the EPA decides that human dignity demands them. Then it's another story entirely.
8=====================================================================================================
To his credit, President Obama did at least sign this Executive Order. However, it turns out that these studies when applied in practice by the number one jobs killer in the United States, the EPA, the agency doesn't even bother to take into account how jobs might be affected by new regulations:
However, if we listen to the President, all these people are being conned by staffers and lobbyists and, if they doubt that this is so, Barry declares that the way a farmer can find out is to call the Agriculture Department. Well, lo and behold, a reporter from Politico tried to do just that:
Here's a rundown of what happened when I started by calling USDA's general hotline to inquire about information related to the effects of noise and dust pollution rules on Illinois farmers:
Wednesday, 2:40 p.m. ET: After calling the USDA’s main line, I am told to call the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Here, I am patched through to a man who is identified as being in charge of "support services." I leave a message.
3:53 p.m.: The man calls me back and recommends in a voicemail message that I call the Illinois Farm Bureau -- a non-governmental organization.
4:02 p.m.: A woman at the Illinois Farm Bureau connects me to someone in the organization’s government affairs department. That person tells me they "don't quite know who to refer you to."
4:06 p.m.: I call the Illinois Department of Agriculture again, letting the person I spoke with earlier know that calling the Illinois Farm Bureau had not been fruitful. He says "those are the kinds of groups that are kind of on top of this or kind of follow things like this. We deal with pesticide here in our bureau."
"You only deal with pesticides?" I ask.
"We deal with other things … but we mainly deal with pesticides here," he said, and gives me the phone number for the office of the department’s director, where he says there are "policy people" as well as the director's staff.
4:10 p.m.: Someone at the director's office transfers me to the agriculture products inspection department, where a woman says their branch deals with things like animal feed, seed and fertilizer.
"I'm going to transfer you to one of the guys at environmental programs."
4:15 p.m.: I reach the answering machine at the environmental programs department, and leave a message.
4:57 p.m.: A man from the environmental programs department gets back to me: "I hate to be the regular state worker that's always accused of passing the buck, but noise and dust regulation would be under our environmental protection agency, rather than the Agriculture Department," he says, adding that he has forwarded my name and number to the agriculture adviser at IEPA.
On Thursday morning, POLITICO started the hunt for an answer again, this time calling the USDA's local office in Henry County, Ill., where the town hall took place.
9:42 a.m.: Asked if someone at the office might be able to provide me with the information I requested, the woman on the phone responds, “Not right now. We may have to actually look that up -- did you Google this or anything?”
When I say that I’m a reporter and would like to discuss my experience with someone who handles media relations there, I am referred to the USDA’s state office in Champaign. I leave a message there.
10:40 a.m.: A spokeswoman for the Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service calls me, to whom I explain my multiple attempts on Wednesday and Thursday to retrieve the information I was looking for.
“What I can tell you is our particular agency does not deal with regulations,” she tells me. “We deal with volunteers who voluntarily want to do things. I think the reason you got that response from the Cambridge office is because in regard to noise and dust regulation, we don’t have anything to do with that.”
She adds that the EPA would be more capable of answering questions regarding regulations.
Finally, I call the USDA’s main media relations department, based here in Washington, where I explain to a spokesperson about my failed attempts to obtain an answer to the Illinois farmer’s question. This was their response, via email:
“Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the Administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.”
Now this isn't some rube farmer making these phone calls, this is a seasoned reporter from the big city and she can't find out a blessed thing. If you are a farmer or an employer looking to make sure you are in compliance with whatever the newest diktat that has come from on high, this is typical of what happens when you try to find important and timely information from federal bureaucrats. In the real world that farmers and businesses live in, "good enough for government work" just doesn't cut it. As it turns out,the Agriculture department doesn't oversee the regulations the farmer complained to the President about. So, all calls placed to them as recommended by Obama would result in a two day run around. Thanks for the help Barry!
7=====================================================================================================
In actuality, dust rules and water run off are regulated by the EPA and Noise Pollution is regulated by OSHA. It isn't that the President is expected to actually know this, but if Obama doesn't know himself, he shouldn't be so dismissive of the farmer who is clearly concerned about how much time he is spending complying with regulations and filling out paperwork. Earth to Barry! It is totally irrelevant whether the farmer can cite the particular rules are that are being "discussed" or that are currently causing him problems. This isn't a political debate. This is a listening tour for crying out loud. If you listen to what the farmer is trying to tell you, you might learn that the incredible amount of time and money it takes to comply with all of the current regulations are just too much for him to deal with. Therefore, the prospect of even more coming down the pike scares the heck out of him. The fact that a farmer can't start his day in his tractor because the reality of his life is that he is inundated with red tape should be enough to at least get a respectful hearing and an understanding nod from his President. Instead, the One dismisses the complaint as unfounded and sniffs that it is merely the result of lobbyist ginning up gullible hicks like him. Some listening, eh?
The truth is that President Obama and his people don't seem to have a clue about how things actually work down on the farm. Think about this. President Empty Suit has never held a real job in the private sector or met a payroll in his life, yet he has the audacity to lecture business that this "uncertainty" they are worried about is nonsense and that they need to "step up" and create jobs. Then Obama tells a farmer that his concerns are not valid. After all, he recently signed an executive order which demanded all federal agencies cut regulations and do cost/benefit analyses. But is that really the case, Mr. President?
Well according to Eric Posner the leftist University of Chicago law professor who was a colleague and friend of both regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and President Obama, the new executive order was designed to make it look like the administration is serious about doing cost/benefit analysis, but:
the executive order also provides plenty of wiggle room that can be exploited by pro-regulatory forces, as indeed did Clinton’s before it. Unlike Reagan’s original order, which simply asked agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis, Clinton’s allowed agencies also to take account of “equity.” Obama’s adds that agencies should take account of “human dignity” and “fairness,” values, it helpfully notes, that are “difficult or impossible to quantify.” This is problematic because quantification is the point of cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis works in the first place only because it imposes mathematical discipline on agencies. They must supply evidence that a proposed regulation has certain benefits and costs, monetize those benefits and costs, and report a number. If the number is greater than zero, then the agency may regulate. If agencies can instead point to unquantifiable benefits such as the promotion of human dignity, they can do whatever they want, and the main selling point of cost-benefit analysis—government transparency—is eliminated.
These wiggle words might be sops to the left, or they might be licenses to agencies to regulate however they want to. Everything depends on how the executive order is implemented, as is so often the case in the law. Indeed, although Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr., all operated under essentially the same cost-benefit executive order, Clinton’s regulatory agenda was more aggressive than that of the three Republican presidents. And academic research has shown that many of the cost-benefit analyses issued under all administrations were shoddy; in fact, there is little evidence that the introduction of cost-benefit analysis has improved the quality of regulations. The reason is that courts do not usually force agencies to comply with cost-benefit analyses, so unless the president steps in, the agency can do what it wants.
There you see, the agencies should take into account "human dignity" and "fairness" values as part of the analysis of benefits. Since those are unquantifiable, the agencies can always use those factors to determine that any proposed rule is worth the cost. Unless, that is, the man who wrote the executive order with holes big enough to drive a truck through were to step in. So, you see, Mr. farmer man, no need to worry about noise and dust rules, unless the EPA decides that human dignity demands them. Then it's another story entirely.
8=====================================================================================================
To his credit, President Obama did at least sign this Executive Order. However, it turns out that these studies when applied in practice by the number one jobs killer in the United States, the EPA, the agency doesn't even bother to take into account how jobs might be affected by new regulations:
Now, one would think that at a time of high unemployment with the President "singularly focused on jobs", that employment would be the number one priority of cost/benefit analyses over at the EPA, but then you don't understand the mindset of the EPA. Do you remember the scientist who told us that if her analysis said that the lizard was endangered that she'd close down all the west Texas oil fields regardless of how many jobs were lost? Well, imagine an entire agency of people like her. Those dust particle regulations that our farmer was so upset about? Here is what he is actually talking about:
Farmers (as well as the lawmakers who represent them) are particularly concerned with the EPA’s forthcoming regulatory review, as called for in the Clean Air Act. The agency’s scientific panel has said that while the science of measuring “coarse particulate material” (i.e., dust) remains uncertain, the EPA would be justified in either retaining current regulatory standard or tightening them by half. Significant quantities of dust, the EPA argues, can pose a significant health risk. “Small particulates less than 10 micrometers in diameter post the greatest problems because they can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream,” the EPA writes on its website. “Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart.”
Most farmers, of course, are well aware of these risks. They operate in rural areas where dust is as naturally occurring as dirt, and is an unavoidable byproduct of their everyday activities. Many argue that mere “common sense” is sufficient to combat these risks, in lieu of burdensome restrictions, which could force farmers to resort to unreasonable and expensive dust-control measures such as constantly watering down gravel and dirt roads. Farm advocates say that the costs associated with new dust regulations would far outweigh the (minimal) benefits to personal health or the environment.
Unfortunately, farmers’ common sense is of minimal consideration to the EPA — the agency requires that its proposals be based on purely abstract, scientific assessments, rarely taking practical considerations into account. “The EPA doesn’t care where the pollution is coming from, and our lungs don’t care,” John Walker, clean air director at the National Resources Defense Council told Reuters in an interview last year. In some states, opponents have argued, the stricter dust standards under consideration would fall below naturally occurring levels, rendering them all but impossible to meet. Violations could result in fines of nearly $40,000 a day, and lead to higher food prices and job losses in rural areas.
Higher food prices and more job losses. Just peachy, eh?
9=====================================================================================================
Well, there's dust and then there is ozone. Dust may or not be regulated. Ozone just has been. How much ozone is the air is safe? The current legal level is .084 parts per million (ppm) and the W administration proposed to lower it to .070 ppm, but that wasn't good enough for Obama's EPA. They wanted a level of .060 ppm which would have put 85% of the counties in the United States in non compliance at an estimated cost of $90 billion per year. Fortunately, the possibility of rolling blackouts and severe power disruptions as well as higher energy bills was just a bit too much for President Obama to stomach in a reelection year. So, he has told the EPA to delay that ruling and send it back for further "study" for a reassessment after the election. In the meantime, the EPA is going to enforce the .070 ppm standard which will also adversely impact the economy and jobs. Only a little bit less so. While they are in the midst of enforcing the W levels, they are going to re-study the .060 standard. Do you want to bet what will happen to that regulation if Obama is reelected and never has to face the voters again?
The point here isn't whether this is a cynical election ploy by the President and another example of him voting "present", but that the bureaucrats over at the EPA thought this was a good idea to begin with. Remember we are talking about a difference of two one hundredths parts per million, but Lisa Jackson's EPA thought that minute change in the levels of ozone was worth causing major financial hardship on 85% of America's counties in the middle of a recession. Had not the President intervened, the EPA would have been delighted to implement it. To be honest, I don't know how much of a health benefit is gained from reducing such a small percentage of ozone emissions. I do know that people live longer now than they ever have, so current levels can't be that terrible. How many lives would be saved? What would be the impact on the general health and welfare of the populace? Would it be worth the cost of up to $90 billion dollars a year? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I know that ninety billion dollars a year is a bucketload of cash. Money which could be used by the people to create jobs instead of killing them.
However, as we saw from the EPA official in the video above, the agency doesn't concern itself with jobs when they do an economic analysis. They would much rather just estimate the cost of regulations in dollars and just expect business to "absorb" the cost as it always has. However, if we were talking about a utility tax increase on every American household of this magnitude which is what this regulation would have represented, it would never pass congress. Can you imagine the Crooks and Thieves voting for a $90 Billion dollar tax increase on every home and business in America? Me either. However, as far as the EPA is concerned, this regulation was just fine and dandy despite it's high cost to the economy. Let's face it, these guys in the EPA just don't give a fig about economics. It's all about the "science" and their agenda.
10====================================================================================================
And the "racket" too...
Come on, you didn't think all these environmentalists over at the EPA were pure hearted public servants concerned only about clean air and saving the planet did you? Don't be silly. As in every sector that the left touches, the system needs to be turned into a self-sustaining money generating machine for everyone involved. Seriously, no business that wants to make a profit is going to hire a "greenie". Therefore, to keep a money stream available for "their" scientists and activists, the EPA and other agencies funnel millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to their "friends":
Farmers (as well as the lawmakers who represent them) are particularly concerned with the EPA’s forthcoming regulatory review, as called for in the Clean Air Act. The agency’s scientific panel has said that while the science of measuring “coarse particulate material” (i.e., dust) remains uncertain, the EPA would be justified in either retaining current regulatory standard or tightening them by half. Significant quantities of dust, the EPA argues, can pose a significant health risk. “Small particulates less than 10 micrometers in diameter post the greatest problems because they can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream,” the EPA writes on its website. “Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart.”
Most farmers, of course, are well aware of these risks. They operate in rural areas where dust is as naturally occurring as dirt, and is an unavoidable byproduct of their everyday activities. Many argue that mere “common sense” is sufficient to combat these risks, in lieu of burdensome restrictions, which could force farmers to resort to unreasonable and expensive dust-control measures such as constantly watering down gravel and dirt roads. Farm advocates say that the costs associated with new dust regulations would far outweigh the (minimal) benefits to personal health or the environment.
Unfortunately, farmers’ common sense is of minimal consideration to the EPA — the agency requires that its proposals be based on purely abstract, scientific assessments, rarely taking practical considerations into account. “The EPA doesn’t care where the pollution is coming from, and our lungs don’t care,” John Walker, clean air director at the National Resources Defense Council told Reuters in an interview last year. In some states, opponents have argued, the stricter dust standards under consideration would fall below naturally occurring levels, rendering them all but impossible to meet. Violations could result in fines of nearly $40,000 a day, and lead to higher food prices and job losses in rural areas.
Higher food prices and more job losses. Just peachy, eh?
9=====================================================================================================
Well, there's dust and then there is ozone. Dust may or not be regulated. Ozone just has been. How much ozone is the air is safe? The current legal level is .084 parts per million (ppm) and the W administration proposed to lower it to .070 ppm, but that wasn't good enough for Obama's EPA. They wanted a level of .060 ppm which would have put 85% of the counties in the United States in non compliance at an estimated cost of $90 billion per year. Fortunately, the possibility of rolling blackouts and severe power disruptions as well as higher energy bills was just a bit too much for President Obama to stomach in a reelection year. So, he has told the EPA to delay that ruling and send it back for further "study" for a reassessment after the election. In the meantime, the EPA is going to enforce the .070 ppm standard which will also adversely impact the economy and jobs. Only a little bit less so. While they are in the midst of enforcing the W levels, they are going to re-study the .060 standard. Do you want to bet what will happen to that regulation if Obama is reelected and never has to face the voters again?
The point here isn't whether this is a cynical election ploy by the President and another example of him voting "present", but that the bureaucrats over at the EPA thought this was a good idea to begin with. Remember we are talking about a difference of two one hundredths parts per million, but Lisa Jackson's EPA thought that minute change in the levels of ozone was worth causing major financial hardship on 85% of America's counties in the middle of a recession. Had not the President intervened, the EPA would have been delighted to implement it. To be honest, I don't know how much of a health benefit is gained from reducing such a small percentage of ozone emissions. I do know that people live longer now than they ever have, so current levels can't be that terrible. How many lives would be saved? What would be the impact on the general health and welfare of the populace? Would it be worth the cost of up to $90 billion dollars a year? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I know that ninety billion dollars a year is a bucketload of cash. Money which could be used by the people to create jobs instead of killing them.
However, as we saw from the EPA official in the video above, the agency doesn't concern itself with jobs when they do an economic analysis. They would much rather just estimate the cost of regulations in dollars and just expect business to "absorb" the cost as it always has. However, if we were talking about a utility tax increase on every American household of this magnitude which is what this regulation would have represented, it would never pass congress. Can you imagine the Crooks and Thieves voting for a $90 Billion dollar tax increase on every home and business in America? Me either. However, as far as the EPA is concerned, this regulation was just fine and dandy despite it's high cost to the economy. Let's face it, these guys in the EPA just don't give a fig about economics. It's all about the "science" and their agenda.
10====================================================================================================
And the "racket" too...
Come on, you didn't think all these environmentalists over at the EPA were pure hearted public servants concerned only about clean air and saving the planet did you? Don't be silly. As in every sector that the left touches, the system needs to be turned into a self-sustaining money generating machine for everyone involved. Seriously, no business that wants to make a profit is going to hire a "greenie". Therefore, to keep a money stream available for "their" scientists and activists, the EPA and other agencies funnel millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to their "friends":
So, the Crooks and Thieves have figured out yet another way to fund their leftist ideology. And what is that ideology? When it comes to the EPA, that agenda is to crucify businesses until they all fall into compliance under the boot of the green movement:
Here is a transcript for those who have difficulty hearing what this would be Roman tyrant has to say:
"But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it's one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production. And I gave, I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I'll go ahead and tell you what I said.
It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don't want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it's time to clean up. And, that won't happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people. S o you go out, you look at an industry, you find people violating the law, you go aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective enforcement tools. Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly. That's what these companies respond to is both their public image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry to clean up very quickly. So, that's our general philosophy."
"But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it's one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production. And I gave, I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I'll go ahead and tell you what I said.
It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don't want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it's time to clean up. And, that won't happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people. S o you go out, you look at an industry, you find people violating the law, you go aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective enforcement tools. Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly. That's what these companies respond to is both their public image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry to clean up very quickly. So, that's our general philosophy."
Yep, that's their general philosophy. Why bother with that pesky Constitution which guarantees everyone equal protection under the law? Let's go out and crucify some businesses so that everyone else will fall into compliance. Sounds more like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russian to me.
As Kimberly Strassell put it:
EPA chief Lisa Jackson was quick to assure the public that her regional administrator—who was caught on video describing his desire to “crucify” oil and gas companies—was not “representative of the agency.” Mr. Armendariz’s views, she said, “don’t reflect any policy that we have, and they don’t reflect our actions over the past two years.” At least she didn’t say it under oath.
The Armendariz story matters precisely because he is the model Obama regulator. Hamstrung by both public opinion and Congress, President Obama has turned to these types to enact his broader agenda…
His actions are no aberration. This is the “Crucify Them” presidency. Mr. Obama couldn’t get a card check law passed, so his National Labor Relations Board’s union lawyers sue Boeing for locating in a right-to-work state. He couldn’t outlaw offshore drilling, so Interior activists continue a permitorium in the Gulf. He can’t make ObamaCare work, so Health Department officials threaten to exclude insurers from exchanges if they raise premiums. He couldn’t outright kill nuclear energy, so his top nuclear regulator has shut down the Yucca Mountain waste repository to strangle industry growth.
Mr. Armendariz apologized for his “words,” though you might wonder why. He was picked to do a job—to “crucify” industry—and he did it. His real mistake was admitting it.
11====================================================================================================
This is emblematic of what happens when you have an entire agency filled with environmental extremists entrusted with police powers. How else can one explain the promotion of such job killing regulations as this one:
As Kimberly Strassell put it:
EPA chief Lisa Jackson was quick to assure the public that her regional administrator—who was caught on video describing his desire to “crucify” oil and gas companies—was not “representative of the agency.” Mr. Armendariz’s views, she said, “don’t reflect any policy that we have, and they don’t reflect our actions over the past two years.” At least she didn’t say it under oath.
The Armendariz story matters precisely because he is the model Obama regulator. Hamstrung by both public opinion and Congress, President Obama has turned to these types to enact his broader agenda…
His actions are no aberration. This is the “Crucify Them” presidency. Mr. Obama couldn’t get a card check law passed, so his National Labor Relations Board’s union lawyers sue Boeing for locating in a right-to-work state. He couldn’t outlaw offshore drilling, so Interior activists continue a permitorium in the Gulf. He can’t make ObamaCare work, so Health Department officials threaten to exclude insurers from exchanges if they raise premiums. He couldn’t outright kill nuclear energy, so his top nuclear regulator has shut down the Yucca Mountain waste repository to strangle industry growth.
Mr. Armendariz apologized for his “words,” though you might wonder why. He was picked to do a job—to “crucify” industry—and he did it. His real mistake was admitting it.
11====================================================================================================
This is emblematic of what happens when you have an entire agency filled with environmental extremists entrusted with police powers. How else can one explain the promotion of such job killing regulations as this one:
The EPA says that this rule will "prolong" lives and:
estimates that the rule will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014.
And that's all well and good. Of course, they don't tell you over how long a period that is or how they came to those conclusions. For that, you have to wade into the myriad of pages of mumbo jumbo in the report to get the details. Sorry to say, I couldn't manage to stay awake long enough to do that. However, I will stipulate that I don't think that there is any doubt that cleaner air is better for you. The question is exactly how much better and at what cost? Taken on its face, the EPA numbers do look scary. Thirty four thousand premature deaths. Why that's half a stadium full of people. Something must be done, right?
But, let's look at those numbers a little more closely, shall we? Out of 240 million people affected, the EPA claims this regulation would prevent 34,000 premature deaths. And while each individual life is important to us, the hard cold mathematics say that this works out to a projected elevated risk of premature death of 0.0014% and non fatal heart attack risk of 0.0006%! Why, that's up there with the risk of listening to your ipod while crossing the street. Next thing you know, they'll try to ban that too. Oh, wait! That's right, they are trying to do just that. Silly me!
If you look at it in terms of percentages, the risks of current levels of smokestack pollution are minimal at best. That's why the EPA only gives you the raw numbers. But, even if you accept the EPA's estimates the odds are still in lottery territory. Yet, even that number is diminished further if one were to include how the adverse impact to the economy and the resultant job loss affects people's health. After all, how many stress related diseases and premature heart attacks which might cause premature death are caused when someone gets an unexpected pink slip or remains unemployed due to the effect on the economy of the new regulation:
estimates that the rule will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014.
And that's all well and good. Of course, they don't tell you over how long a period that is or how they came to those conclusions. For that, you have to wade into the myriad of pages of mumbo jumbo in the report to get the details. Sorry to say, I couldn't manage to stay awake long enough to do that. However, I will stipulate that I don't think that there is any doubt that cleaner air is better for you. The question is exactly how much better and at what cost? Taken on its face, the EPA numbers do look scary. Thirty four thousand premature deaths. Why that's half a stadium full of people. Something must be done, right?
But, let's look at those numbers a little more closely, shall we? Out of 240 million people affected, the EPA claims this regulation would prevent 34,000 premature deaths. And while each individual life is important to us, the hard cold mathematics say that this works out to a projected elevated risk of premature death of 0.0014% and non fatal heart attack risk of 0.0006%! Why, that's up there with the risk of listening to your ipod while crossing the street. Next thing you know, they'll try to ban that too. Oh, wait! That's right, they are trying to do just that. Silly me!
If you look at it in terms of percentages, the risks of current levels of smokestack pollution are minimal at best. That's why the EPA only gives you the raw numbers. But, even if you accept the EPA's estimates the odds are still in lottery territory. Yet, even that number is diminished further if one were to include how the adverse impact to the economy and the resultant job loss affects people's health. After all, how many stress related diseases and premature heart attacks which might cause premature death are caused when someone gets an unexpected pink slip or remains unemployed due to the effect on the economy of the new regulation:
12====================================================================================================
Somehow, I don't think the numbers crunchers at the EPA entered that little variable into their computer model, do you? What about how many cases of clinical depression are caused by long term unemployment? What about the number of divorces and broken families that will occur because of the unemployment and financial hardships caused by the proposed law? What about how many of our most vulnerable and elderly citizens might die during a heatwave because the rolling blackouts caused by the new regulations? What about how many millions of people who would be affected by the impact of higher electricity prices that might cause them to under heat and under cool their homes causing a greater likelihood of sickness, disease and even death?
It seems to me that when the negative health impact of higher energy bills, job losses, ruined lives, diminished futures and the resultant lack of money to save for things like retirement and children's education are factored in against a 0.0014% greater chance of premature death, it might turn out that doing nothing would be a far more positive health outcome than the tiny improvement of air quality provided by enacting this legislation. Just engaging in a rough back of the envelope kind of cost benefit analysis like this, the new EPA rules don't seem justified from a health standpoint given the damage they might do to the economy. Unfortunately, the scientists and numbers crunchers over at the EPA only analyzed the health impact of changing the level of the mercury, nitrogen and sulfur oxides and completely ignored the new regulations unintended consequences on health caused by the economic impact on people's lives. As a result, we don't really have an accurate or useful number to use to evaluate the health benefits of the new EPA proposal either. I don't think that this is an accident. EPA numbers serve to advance their agenda. Period.
Thus, when you realize that cost/benefit analyses are just for show and bear no relation to reality, the EPA's actions make perfect sense. Even though they rely on faulty "science" filled with exaggerated claims that have minimal impact on public health, they know that the media-Matrix will sell their propaganda without any scrutiny whatsoever. They can be relied on to put out the fictitious meme that the EPA are all kind hearted public servants whose only wish is to make the air clean, prevent premature deaths and go after those nasty, evil big business polluters. That's the state sanctioned propaganda and that's what will go out unfiltered into the Matrix.
This whole smoke screen exists solely to give the President cover for regulations on coal that will cost the economy billions and contribute even further to the massive unemployment we already suffer. The truth is none of these regulations anything to do with air quality. The EPA is just cynically using whatever statutes they can in order to implement their green global warming agenda. It is all about carrying out President Obama's declaration of war on coal that he promised during the last Presidential campaign:
Somehow, I don't think the numbers crunchers at the EPA entered that little variable into their computer model, do you? What about how many cases of clinical depression are caused by long term unemployment? What about the number of divorces and broken families that will occur because of the unemployment and financial hardships caused by the proposed law? What about how many of our most vulnerable and elderly citizens might die during a heatwave because the rolling blackouts caused by the new regulations? What about how many millions of people who would be affected by the impact of higher electricity prices that might cause them to under heat and under cool their homes causing a greater likelihood of sickness, disease and even death?
It seems to me that when the negative health impact of higher energy bills, job losses, ruined lives, diminished futures and the resultant lack of money to save for things like retirement and children's education are factored in against a 0.0014% greater chance of premature death, it might turn out that doing nothing would be a far more positive health outcome than the tiny improvement of air quality provided by enacting this legislation. Just engaging in a rough back of the envelope kind of cost benefit analysis like this, the new EPA rules don't seem justified from a health standpoint given the damage they might do to the economy. Unfortunately, the scientists and numbers crunchers over at the EPA only analyzed the health impact of changing the level of the mercury, nitrogen and sulfur oxides and completely ignored the new regulations unintended consequences on health caused by the economic impact on people's lives. As a result, we don't really have an accurate or useful number to use to evaluate the health benefits of the new EPA proposal either. I don't think that this is an accident. EPA numbers serve to advance their agenda. Period.
Thus, when you realize that cost/benefit analyses are just for show and bear no relation to reality, the EPA's actions make perfect sense. Even though they rely on faulty "science" filled with exaggerated claims that have minimal impact on public health, they know that the media-Matrix will sell their propaganda without any scrutiny whatsoever. They can be relied on to put out the fictitious meme that the EPA are all kind hearted public servants whose only wish is to make the air clean, prevent premature deaths and go after those nasty, evil big business polluters. That's the state sanctioned propaganda and that's what will go out unfiltered into the Matrix.
This whole smoke screen exists solely to give the President cover for regulations on coal that will cost the economy billions and contribute even further to the massive unemployment we already suffer. The truth is none of these regulations anything to do with air quality. The EPA is just cynically using whatever statutes they can in order to implement their green global warming agenda. It is all about carrying out President Obama's declaration of war on coal that he promised during the last Presidential campaign:
13====================================================================================================
So, how much will our electric bills necessarily skyrocket as a result of Barack Obama's attempt to stop the rise of the oceans? An insane amount:
Obama’s War on Coal has already taken a remarkable toll on coal-fired power plants in America.
Last week the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a shocking drop in power sector coal consumption in the first quarter of 2012. Coal-fired power plants are now generating just 36 percent of U.S. electricity, versus 44.6 percent just one year ago.
It’s the result of an unprecedented regulatory assault on coal that will leave us all much poorer.
Last week PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia) held its 2015 capacity auction. These are the first real, market prices that take Obama’s most recent anti-coal regulations into account, and they prove that he is keeping his 2008 campaign promise to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”
The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt.
Why the massive price increases? Andy Ott from PJM stated the obvious: “Capacity prices were higher than last year's because of retirements of existing coal-fired generation resulting largely from environmental regulations which go into effect in 2015.” Northern Ohio is suffering from more forced coal-plant retirements than the rest of the region, hence the even higher price.
These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.
House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) aptly explained: “The PJM auction forecasts a dim future where Americans will be paying more to keep the lights on. We are seeing more and more coal plants fall victim to EPA’s destructive regulatory agenda, and as a result, we are seeing more job losses and higher electricity prices.”
Will it really be that bad? Honestly, it's hard to say. Perhaps the drop in natural gas prices and the turnover to gas powered electricty will lower these prices by the time we get to 2015, but if the EPA has it's way with anti-fracking rules, perhaps not. What is certain is that many jobs are going to be lost in the coal and power industry and that, at least short term, prices will go up dramatically as a result of Obama's war on coal.
14====================================================================================================
In fact, a pro-coal lobbying group sponsored an analysis that says the impact of EPA's proposed regulations which are all sure to be enacted if Obama is reelected is dire:
So, how much will our electric bills necessarily skyrocket as a result of Barack Obama's attempt to stop the rise of the oceans? An insane amount:
Obama’s War on Coal has already taken a remarkable toll on coal-fired power plants in America.
Last week the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a shocking drop in power sector coal consumption in the first quarter of 2012. Coal-fired power plants are now generating just 36 percent of U.S. electricity, versus 44.6 percent just one year ago.
It’s the result of an unprecedented regulatory assault on coal that will leave us all much poorer.
Last week PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia) held its 2015 capacity auction. These are the first real, market prices that take Obama’s most recent anti-coal regulations into account, and they prove that he is keeping his 2008 campaign promise to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”
The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt.
Why the massive price increases? Andy Ott from PJM stated the obvious: “Capacity prices were higher than last year's because of retirements of existing coal-fired generation resulting largely from environmental regulations which go into effect in 2015.” Northern Ohio is suffering from more forced coal-plant retirements than the rest of the region, hence the even higher price.
These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.
House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) aptly explained: “The PJM auction forecasts a dim future where Americans will be paying more to keep the lights on. We are seeing more and more coal plants fall victim to EPA’s destructive regulatory agenda, and as a result, we are seeing more job losses and higher electricity prices.”
Will it really be that bad? Honestly, it's hard to say. Perhaps the drop in natural gas prices and the turnover to gas powered electricty will lower these prices by the time we get to 2015, but if the EPA has it's way with anti-fracking rules, perhaps not. What is certain is that many jobs are going to be lost in the coal and power industry and that, at least short term, prices will go up dramatically as a result of Obama's war on coal.
14====================================================================================================
In fact, a pro-coal lobbying group sponsored an analysis that says the impact of EPA's proposed regulations which are all sure to be enacted if Obama is reelected is dire:
And energy prices would rise significantly:
15====================================================================================================
Is this war on coal waged to "heal the planet" worth the cost in money and jobs at a time of recession to someone who is unemployed or about to become unemployed because of these rules? Is the science so sound that the minor improvements in world greenhouse emissions is worth the cost to our economy? Do the American people really want to sacrifice billions of dollars in higher electricity prices? All of these are great questions and worthy of a national debate and a Congressional vote. But, long ago, we the people abrogated our rights to decide our own future and gave that power to unelected bureaucrats like those in the EPA.
The left in this country understood early on that if they could enact sweeping legislation with great sounding and humanitarian titles that they could enact their agenda without having to risk the involvement of pesky and uneducated citizenry who would be more concerned about their "small" picture economic concerns than the grand visions of their betters. Thus, we got the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act among many others. After all, who but the meanest and most uncaring cad would argue against clean air, furry little critters and handicapped people? With a compliant media on their side, those who objected to the size, cost and scope of the power that was being taken from the legislative branch and the people and given to individual agencies to decide as they saw fit were scorned and derided as corporate tools, alarmists and troglodytes.
Today, after the passage of these acts, immense power to change virtually every facet of our lives has been granted to unelected bureaucrats whose bias in favor of their agenda is clear. After all, who would go to work for the EPA unless environmental concerns were at the forefront of your priority list? As we speak, the main priority of the environmental movement is to curb the greenhouse gasses that they believe are causing the earth to warm. They claim that they are only enacting policy based upon the irrefutable science that says that man made CO2 is causing a dangerous global warming that threatens us all. Who can argue with science they say. But, it is really science?
Is this war on coal waged to "heal the planet" worth the cost in money and jobs at a time of recession to someone who is unemployed or about to become unemployed because of these rules? Is the science so sound that the minor improvements in world greenhouse emissions is worth the cost to our economy? Do the American people really want to sacrifice billions of dollars in higher electricity prices? All of these are great questions and worthy of a national debate and a Congressional vote. But, long ago, we the people abrogated our rights to decide our own future and gave that power to unelected bureaucrats like those in the EPA.
The left in this country understood early on that if they could enact sweeping legislation with great sounding and humanitarian titles that they could enact their agenda without having to risk the involvement of pesky and uneducated citizenry who would be more concerned about their "small" picture economic concerns than the grand visions of their betters. Thus, we got the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act among many others. After all, who but the meanest and most uncaring cad would argue against clean air, furry little critters and handicapped people? With a compliant media on their side, those who objected to the size, cost and scope of the power that was being taken from the legislative branch and the people and given to individual agencies to decide as they saw fit were scorned and derided as corporate tools, alarmists and troglodytes.
Today, after the passage of these acts, immense power to change virtually every facet of our lives has been granted to unelected bureaucrats whose bias in favor of their agenda is clear. After all, who would go to work for the EPA unless environmental concerns were at the forefront of your priority list? As we speak, the main priority of the environmental movement is to curb the greenhouse gasses that they believe are causing the earth to warm. They claim that they are only enacting policy based upon the irrefutable science that says that man made CO2 is causing a dangerous global warming that threatens us all. Who can argue with science they say. But, it is really science?