Yea! The EPA job killing machine is dead! Long live the job creators in their victory over Obama the Evil Muslim Keyan Marxist Fascist! Obama has reversed course again, by rejecting the unanimous opinion of the EPA’s scientists to issue regulations to lower ozone pollution, but he saved American jobs, right? Except when has the EPA killed jobs before? Let’s look into our past instead of looking at Republican predictions of the future. Specifically let’s look at the effects of those horrible stop acid rain regs. The Republicans at the time predicted billions and billions of costs and (cue the drum roll) a major loss of jobs. What really happened?
For example, when the Environmental Protection Agency first proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act aimed at reducing acid rain caused by power plant emissions, the electric utility industry warned that they would cost $7.5 billion and tens of thousands of jobs. But the cost of the program has been closer to $1 billion, said Dallas Burtraw, an economist at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research group on the environment. And the E.P.A., in a paper published this year, cited studies showing that the law had been a modest net creator of jobs through industry spending on technology to comply with it.
Damn. One Billion Dollars was all it cost to stop pouring acid rain into the lakes and streams where I live? That’s more than we lend those scumbags “job creators” on Wall Street every hour to –uh — wreck the economy. Could the “Job creators” be misinformed, or are they simply lying? Let’s look at another example, from Florida where Congresswoman Sandy Adams claimed regulations to clean up Florida’s water was a mass conspiracy to help polluters and “kill jobs.” Was she right?
Make no mistake, Florida needs these new standards. A near-dead Lake Apopka, a chronically sick St. Johns River and the region’s many algae-bloom-filled springs cry out for them. And with the NRC scientists examining the cost of making improvements to sewage plants, stormwater systems and septic systems, we expect they’ll show that the financial burden from the standards will be significantly less than the $1,000 per year per sewage customer that opponents contend. The EPA’s own estimate: $11 per resident.
If the arguments against the EPA’s tougher nutrient standards sound familiar, that’s because they’ve been used over and over again by reactionary lawmakers to eviscerate sensible regulations. The anti-environment gang in Tallahassee killed state growth laws they said killed jobs. What nonsense.
Well, that’s a biased “ecoterrorist” source. Obviously. Just like this “study” by the EPA examining the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act over the period 1990 to 2020. Here’s the short version:
A new report, released by the EPA this month (March 2011), analyzes the costs and benefits from the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) as they relate to the economy, public health and the environment. It found that the benefits from CAAA regulation far outweigh the costs by a factor of 30 to 1 with high-benefit estimates exceeding costs 90 to 1. Even low-benefit estimates found gains exceed costs 3 to 1. According to the analysis, CAAA will continue to better Americans in the near future; for the year 2020 alone, benefits will reach $2 trillion and save 230,000 people from premature death.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated, “The Clean Air Act’s decades-long track record of success has helped millions of Americans live healthier, safer and more productive lives. This report outlines the extraordinary health and economic benefits of one of our nation’s most transformative environmental laws and demonstrates the power of bipartisan approaches to protecting the health of the American people from pollution in our environment.”
Would you like to see some colorful graphics and charts illustrating her statements? I thought so. Here’s one showing the cost of regulation versus the benefits. Call it the Balloon within a balloon graph:
Whoa, Nellie! Two Trillion Dollaros in savings for a cost of a mere $65 Billion over 30 years (How much again did we pour down the Banksters Rat Hole give Wall Street job creators and Big Oil job creators over the past couple of years?) Sure sounds like a great deal to me.
But there’s more!
But there’s more!
The extent to which estimated benefits exceed estimated costs and an in‐depth analysis of uncertainties indicate that it is extremely unlikely the costs of 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment programs would exceed their benefits under any reasonable combination of alternative assumptions or methods identified during this study. Even if one were to adopt the extreme assumption that air pollution has no effect on premature mortality –or that avoiding such effects has no value—the benefits of reduced nonfatal health effects and visibility improvements alone are more than twice the total cost of compliance with 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment requirements. […]
Economy-wide modeling was also conducted to estimate the effect of the 1990 Amendments on overall U.S. economic growth and the economic welfare of American households. When some of the beneficial economic effects of clean air programs were incorporated along with the costs of these programs, economy‐wide modeling projected net overall improvements in economic growth and welfare. These improvements are projected to occur because cleaner air leads to better health and productivity for American workers as well as savings on medical expenses for air pollution related health problems. The beneficial economic effects of these two improvements more than offset the costly effects across the economy of expenditures for pollution control.
Let’s look at another chart shall we?
Gosh darn, there the EPA goes again, disputing the facts the “job creators” at The Exxon funded Heritage Foundation and other conservative and business groups assert that the EPA and its regulations are “job-killers.” They even forced Mr. First Black Muslim President Who May or May Not Have Been Born in the USA to adopt their rhetoric that the EPA “kills jobs.”
Just days after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced the House would begin voting to repeal proposed air quality regulations that he said would prevent job growth, President Obama instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw its proposed ozone regulations.
“I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover,” Obama said in a statement.
Obama said the standards are already being revised and would have to be updated again in 2013.
“Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered,” Obama said in the statement.
Funny, but that’s not what his EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said just days before President Obama told her to shove her agency’s regulations where the sun don’t shine:
Some in Washington are working to weaken safeguards and undermine laws that protect our families from pollution that causes asthma, cancer and other illnesses, especially in children. Big polluters are lobbying Congress for loopholes to use our air and water as dumping grounds. The result won’t be more jobs; it will be more mercury in our air and water and more health threats to our kids. As a senior official from the Bush EPA recently wrote, “Abolishing the EPA will not cause a revival of America’s economy, but it will certainly result in a major decline in public health and our quality of life.” […]
When big polluters distort EPA’s proposals as a drag on our economy, they ignore the fact that clean air, clear water and healthy workers are all essential to American businesses.
They also overlook the innovations in clean technology that are creating new jobs right now. The CEO of Michigan’s Clean Light Green Light recently said, “EPA has opened the doors to innovation and new economic opportunities. By spurring entrepreneurs who have good ideas and the drive to work hard, the EPA has helped give rise to countless small businesses in clean energy, advanced lighting, pollution control and more, which in turn are creating jobs.”
It’s time to recognize that delays of long-expected health standards leave companies uncertain about investing in clean infrastructure, environmental retrofits, and the new workers needed to do those jobs. These are potential opportunities for engineers and scientists, as well as pipefitters, welders and steelworkers. Pledges to weaken or slow proposed standards, many of which have been developed over years and with industry input, prevent businesses from investing in those jobs.
Some leaders in Congress have already stated their intent to roll back critical environmental protections when they return to session. Misleading claims are translating into actions that could dismantle clean air standards that protect our families from mercury, arsenic, smog and carbon dioxide. All of this is happening despite the evidence of history, despite the evidence of Congress’ own objective Research Service, and despite the need for job creation strategies that go well beyond simply undermining protections for our health, our families and our communities.
By “Some leaders in Congress” she meant Republican Congressional slugs members like Eric the “Let’s use Debt Ceiling Bill to hold America Hostage” Cantor. Who knew that her boss was going to agree with those “Job-creatin’ Big Polluter campaign contribution takin'” Republicans only days after she wrote her opinion piece for the Huffington Post.
I guess she didn’t get the memo:
Well I’m sure this is a wily and brilliant electoral stratigcalistical maneuver by the President’s ace campaign re-election team. I’m sure someone will tell me it is, in any event. I can’t wait until President Obama’s next brilliant move to destroy the Professional Left’s (e.g., people like EPA scientists and his own EPA Chief and that devil Paul Krugman) undue influence on Democratic Politics, which is, as we all know the only real obstacle to improving his approval rating, his re-election and a safer, more secure America — for “Job Creators.”
There is a benefit in Obama having pre-emptively done this now. It prevents the Congress from holding it hostage by putting legislative restraints on EPA’s action. The folks at EPA survived George W. Bush and were ready to go on greenhouse gas regulation when Obama took office. It will not take long to restart this effort, and the review will likely make a stronger not a weaker case for regulation.
It is likely a strategy to prevent the President’s hands being tied legislatively on regulations. I would hope the campaign staff realizes that this means they have to work harder to hold environmentalists in the base.
That said, the optics of this coming out of nowhere are terrible.
So … pre-emotive ransom-paying? Yes, I can see that’d be an excellent strategy to prevent hostage-taking.
Would you prefer a real hostage?
A provision added to a need-to-pass appropriations bill that legislatively prevented the EPA from doing anything about ozone. That is, a repeal of part of the Clean Air Act. We have Democrats in Congress nutty enough to cave on that. Folks from coal states or potential oil shale production states.
It is a delay not a total stoppage of work on the regulations. And it leaves the current regulations in place.
So far, the President has prevented Republicans in Congress from succeeding in forbidding EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.
And it leaves the current regulations in place.
Current regulations that include a much more aggressive regulation to reduce smog – CSAPR – that were adopted this past July.
http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/
Frankly I do not trust President Obama any longer.
Nor doi I believe like some that his election is reassured or that even if he does squeak in we won’t have Republican majorities in both houses.
He has done more damage to our social security net in two years than Clinton in 8 with welfare reform. He has failed to produce jobs, the number one requirement of any president in a very bad economy. He has caved to Republicans when he had majorities in the House and when he didn’t. He continued the NSA spying. He passed inadequate financial reforms that he is allowing Congress to gut and still shoveling money at Wall Street. He adopts republican talking points far too often. He pisses on progressives and unions and environmentalists as if he didn’t get elected in 2008 without our help. He’s in the pocket of so many big corporations it would be laughable if he wasn’t a Democrat. He’s not a fighter he a Neville Chamberlain forever seeking compromise with lunatics and ruthless opportunists who want him out of office despite the fact eh has adopted 98% of their agenda (even his health care plan was originally a Republican creation).
Is that all his fault? Perhaps not. But he had the chance to nix the tar sands pipeline and allowed the State Dept.to essentially green light the project. He approved more off shore oil drilling, deep water and otherwise. So excuse me if I think he back stabbed his own EPA chief over an issue that would have not been a big issue in next year;s election and for which he will get no credit from Republicans or other voters.
I foresee a Republican with at least a fifty fifty shot at capturing the White House from him. WE are in for a lost decade after the last one we had under Bush. Expect health care reform (inadequate as it is) to be repealed, social security to be privatized and medicare to be vouchered all while corporate welfare is expanded and more jobs lost. That;s not a worst case scenario anymore., sadly.
You are talking about framing, not about actual results.
Nothing yet has happened to Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid (except for state budget cuts to Medicaid that the feds have not backfilled).
He has failed to produce jobs for the same reason the EuroZone bankers have failed to produce jobs and have forced austerity on several EuroZone countries. The dominant consensus business view of economics is self-serving and false. But most Americans believe it to be true after 30 years of Reaganomics. But there is no way that a black President using the bully pulpit is going to turn that around; the framing of that is too ingrained in the consciousness of most white folks, even though most deny it—even the progressives. The problem is not what the President says; it is what white folks hear no matter what he says. And the bigger problem is that almost all members of Congress buy into that consensus economic viewpoint.
There is too much in play right now to predict the 2012 election. Wait until January. The political conflict (or lack of it) this fall and the public’s response to it will be crucial to the direction the voters go.
What happens to the EPA chief does not amount to much. The EPA organization itself is tough; it has survived Reagan and both Bushes. It has performed even when its libraries were taken away by George W. Bush. A delay in issuing the regs is much better than losing the power to issue any regs.
I share your fears about the future and every fifth day or so I go into a panic. But the future is always wide open to surprises. The parts of the health care reform act that protect folks with pre-existing conditions, that prevent recissions, and that mandate the percentage of funds that insurance companies must pay out for provider care are not likely to go away. They are growing in popularity with those who are benefiting from them (and have incomes that they can afford to benefit from them). There are a not insignificant number of Republican voters in that category. By 2014, the individual mandates and exchanges will either be ruled unconstitutional or will be seen to be substantially more expensive than single-payer. A Republican will have zero leverage in repealing or privatizing Social Security; that is not “Nixon goes to China”. The public is wise to that one.
At some point the race to the bottom ends because we have hit the bottom and US workers become financially competitive again. Some of that has already happened; some companies have moved jobs back onshore. That is on hold for a lot of companies because of the lack of demand. And workers outside of the US are beginning to ask for better labor and environmental standards. While China’s mercantile policy has caught it finally in an economic bind that could bring stagflation. And some prominent Wall Street economists are revisiting Marx’s analysis of the contradiction in capitalism. And seeing how in a totally deregulated economy Marx might have had some good understanding of how the system could fail. Like I said, the future is open. It is the best of times. It is the worst of times.
And Rick Perry has duck kissing Jim DeMint’s ring because he has a drought-stricken state with a major wildfire. And Ed Rollins drops Michele Bachmann. Could you have predicted either of those? Oh, and Sarah Palin draws twice the crowd of Romney in — New Hampshire.
“He has done more damage to our social security net in two years than Clinton in 8 with welfare reform.”
I defy you to name a single change to the American social security net under Obama.
You mean having Cass Sunstein spouting GOP talking points when trying to defend the actions of shitting on the EPA?
Cass Sunstein’s talking points were full of shit.
But it’s not talking points that are going to matter. It is whether the regulatory process at EPA survives. And so far the process has.
It is not the speech Thursday that will set the stage for this fall’s conflict but whether there is an appeal to voters above the heads of Congress. And whether the President accurately understands where the centerpoint of politics is right now. Was the Labor Day speech a pander to the labor movement or was it something that the President would say as President of all the people?
But talking points(and negotiating positions) matter. Why? Look at the President’s putting raising the Medicare eligibility age on the table. That becomes a starting point for later negotiations. Do you see how that works? I am sure Orange Julius and Miss McConnell won’t let the President forget it.
Has the eligibility age actually been raised yet? Dah Boner and Dah Turtle are not who are important. It is Democratic unity in their strategy that is important. Putting Medicare eligibility on the table was a sop to Kent Conrad to keep him in the Democratic strategy. Pointedly Patty Murray is on the joint committee, not Kent Conrad; Conrad, having announced his retirement, is a lame duck.
You cannot stake out a position if one of your key players balks. The President does not have the power over Congress that a coach has over his players. A President cannot fire a Senator or a Congressman–moreso if they have financial support independent of the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC.
While responding to bullshit with facts is good, there needs to be an emotionally-based response to the “job-killing” mantra as well. It’s time to start calling de-regulation what it is … “people-killing”.
The Republicans are pushing people-killing deregulation down our throats on behalf of their corporate sponsors.
Now if there were only a political party in the US whose leaders would be willing to point that out …
Good frame, especially when it comes to occupational safety (Massey Energy is poster child) and food safety.
Meanwhile:
Motorists Prime Beneficiaries of Socialism
Well I’m sure this is a wily and brilliant electoral stratigcalistical maneuver by the President’s ace campaign re-election team. I’m sure someone will tell me it is, in any event.
And I’m sure that the content of merit of any such dissent will be utterly irrelevant to your opinion about it.
Since the mere fact that an argument disputes your narrative have always been sufficient reason for you to reject it.
Key Democratic Senators, including progressive champion Sherrod Brown and, um, loudmouthed buffoon Joe Manchin, have been pushing for the new regulations not to be implemented for a long time. Sometimes when Obama does something you don’t like, you could consider the possibility that he’s not doing it to spite you, or to nuzzle up to Republicans, but because there are important sectors of the Democratic party who want them. (See, for instance, Democratic senators up for reelection in 2010 — including Feingold and Boxer — pleading not to go forward with separating the extension of the upper-income tax cuts from the middle-income tax cuts.)