Obama detached from reality of his regulation

January 18, 2011

President Obama has allegedly given up cigarettes but his op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal makes us wonder what they’re now smoking in the White House.

In “Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System,” President Obama rhapsodizes about the value and necessity of balanced regulation. On a superficial level, even the libertarian economist Milton Friedman would have agreed with that sentiment. But of course, details matter and that’s where the President’s argument falls apart.

In one of two concrete examples he provides about regulatory actions his administration has taken, President Obama writes (fantasizes?),

One important example of this overall approach is the fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks. When I took office, the country faced years of litigation and confusion because of conflicting rules set by Congress, federal regulators and states.

The EPA and the Department of Transportation worked with auto makers, labor unions, states like California, and environmental advocates this past spring to turn a tangle of rules into one aggressive new standard. It was a victory for car companies that wanted regulatory certainty; for consumers who will pay less at the pump; for our security, as we save 1.8 billion barrels of oil; and for the environment as we reduce pollution.

The reality is that the car makers have long fought higher CAFE standards. The only way they can meet the standards is to sell enough dangerous and unprofitable small cars to offset the safe and profitable large cars and SUVs sold. As prices are again heading toward $4 per gallon, consumers aren’t paying less for gasoline. And if we’re using less gasoline, it’s only because our economy is in the toilet, not because of CAFE.

The other example the President cited is a new process for approving medical devices. But as those rules have not even been proposed, we’ll have to wait and see about them.

The President also wrote,

But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.

For instance, the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month.

Hey President Obama, the FDA also considers carbon dioxide to be safe for human consumption in soft drinks, yet the EPA is regulating it as a threat to the public welfare under the Clean Air Act. How about rollin’ that one back?

Now that President Obama has lost the ability to jam his agenda through Congress, he will use the regulatory agencies to do the same. No one should be fooled by his rhetoric — which doesn’t make any sense anyway.

Update: President Obama issued today an executive order (i.e., policy guidance to executive branch agencies) entitled, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The words sound good (e.g., ” each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency’s regulatory actions”), but then again, East Germany was also called the “German Democratic Republic” — and it was none of those.

6 Responses to “Obama detached from reality of his regulation”

  1. bobrgeologist Says:

    When politicians talk about controlling climates, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The irrationality of the simple belief that climates can be controlled with the very minor gas CO2 has been proven false by the inability to produce a scrap of empirical proof by 20 years of research grants totaling over $30 billion. We had better accept that climates have alwas been changeable without any input by mankind and learn how to adapt in this ever changing world. If homo sapiens exist until the mantle cools and the land masses are destroyed by the overwhelming oceans, man will have to emulate the whales who were once land animals as shown by the presence of vestigial legs in their skeletons.

  2. johnnylucid Says:

    Here’s a nice counterpoint to POTUS on regulation, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/not-so-fast/bureaucrats-keep-us-safe/

  3. enviroprof Says:

    If he really wants to reduce the nonsense regulations, he should start with the excessive reporting requirements. GHG reporting, TRI reporting, TSCA reports, etc. Added together these impose a significant burden on businesses while the data they generate is virtually worthless.

  4. cnuge33 Says:

    “Hey President Obama, the FDA also considers carbon dioxide to be safe for human consumption in soft drinks, yet the EPA is regulating it as a threat to the public welfare under the Clean Air Act. How about rollin’ that one back?”

    What are you smoking? That’s the better question. Why is any regulation bad to you? Safe food, clean air, clean water, better gas mileage – these are great things! Please don’t tell me that big business will do this on their own.

    Without regulations, companies would liquify our first borns and sell it to us as protein shakes. Just for a buck.

    Post this Steve! Stop censonring me!

    Chris

    • iheartagw Says:

      “Censonring”? My guess is your failure to post is due to user error. But I digress…

      Where have you ever read that Milloy wants ALL regulations to cease? The topic is regulations that are nonsensical, most notably of which is GHG regulations. EPA is SUPPOSED to attach a cost-benefit analysis to every regulation by a standing Executive Order. EPA has absolutely cannot do such a thing for any GHG regulation. Why? Because there is no one person or scientific body on earth that can possibly attach an objective benefit to a reduction of 1 ppmv or 100 ppmv CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. Such a benefit only exists in the fantasy mind of people like yourself who blindly follow the hopelessly schizophrenic mind of James Hansen. If EPA were to even try to attach an objective cost-benefit analysis to any of its GHG regulations they would be laughed to scorn.

  5. sean2829 Says:

    If he is so insistant on regulations that make sense, why did his administration just change the renewable fuel mandate to allow up to 15% ethanol in the face of a Russian grain harvest failure. The increased cost of food commodities has already contributed to revolt of a north African country and riots in others.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers

%d bloggers like this: