In the News

NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity has put out a tip sheet for reporters to get to the bottom of assertions that government regulations, such as ones by EPA, are killing jobs. And also to check on claims to the opposite – that regulations are creating jobs.

The potential of the retrospective review of rules adopted by federal agencies has been hailed by both the right and the left as a way to improve regulation and increase efficiency: by collecting information on what works and what does not, we can make better choices in the future. The Obama Administration has embraced this vision of retrospective review, but unfortunately, by focusing almost exclusively on cutting costs, it is walking back its commitment to use this tool in a balanced fashion.

President Obama has placed streamlining government bureaucracy among his priorities, saying he wants to “hunt down and eliminate misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government.” That could be like shooting fish in a barrel, if his administration takes a few major steps to facilitate better coordination between agencies.

The judges’ decision could even apply to rules besides the landmark greenhouse gas regulations, said Jason Schwartz, legal director for the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University. For example, a recently proposed rule on pollution from nitric acid plants could include nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas with close to 300 times the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide.

“This does not appear to be any kind of legal violation. A regulated industry is always going to be part of this process,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. The institute helps not-for-profit groups use cost-benefit analysis to advocate for effective government regulations.

“But this is a bad thing for a couple of reasons,” Livermore said. “Why did the DEC only talk to industry and not environmental groups and the impacted communities? If only industry is part of the shaping of the draft regulations, that imbalance has the potential to skew the rules toward industry.”

Pollution saved with conversion also saves lives, estimates a 2010 study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law titled “Residual Risks, The Unseen Costs of Using Dirty Oil in New York City Boilers.”

Estimated annual health benefits from conversion include a decrease in childhood acute bronchitis by about 115 cases, a significant reduction of nonfatal heart attacks, the prevention of thousands of lost work days, and an estimated 73 to 188 lives saved.

Budgets are about choices and priorities. We promote policies and fund services we believe the government should pursue because we want those things to generate positive outcomes for our society. We weigh the costs of implementing those policies or programs against the worth or value of the outcomes they produce. In other words, “Costs can only be understood in light of the benefits…they would generate,” as Jennifer Rosenberg of the Institute for Policy Integrity has stressed.

Michael Livermore at the Institute for Policy Integrity explains:

It is true that only a small percentage of the EPA’s estimated benefits from the mercury standards come from mercury reduction ($6 million in benefits out of a total of $90 billion). But that’s because the benefits from having less mercury in our water streams, oceans and, subsequently, the seafood we eat are extremely difficult to quantify.

Would you recommend that a pregnant sister or daughter eat a seafood feast every day? Probably not, since doctors routinely warn of the risks of mercury exposure in unborn children.

Legislative efforts to halt the EPA’s first ever rule to prevent the emissions of mercury and other toxic are a mistake. Even delaying the rule would come at the grave expense of the public’s health. It’s a rule with $90 billion in annual benefits and that’s likely to be a serious underestimate.

The study findings are borne out by the facts. A study from NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity found that usage of the phrase “job-killing regulation” in newspapers has increased 17,550% between 2007 and 2011. And media figures have indeed thrown around the phrase “job killers” or similar terms to attack progressive government policies. Furthermore, media figures have repeatedly launched misleading attacks on Obama’s jobs record.