President Obama is going to announce his latest jobs plan next Wednesday, which by most accounts will again propose an extension of the payroll tax holiday. OK, but as BRT President John Engler likes to ask (rhetorically), "If jobs are a priority, how about a holiday on new regulations?"
Whether it's a holiday, moratorium, or a stomping foot on the brakes, business is telling the administration to stop!
The growth-throttling impact on the Obama administration's regulatory agenda was reaffirmed Tuesday when the White House told Speaker of the House John Boehner that seven proposed federal regulations could cost $1 billion or more a year. Leading the list -- logically enough, since it IS the most expensive environmental regulation in history -- is the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to lower air quality standards for ozone. The EPA is pursuing this regulation despite its potential $90 billion annual costs, which, like so many regulatory proposals, understates the real costs; EPA's is counting on the invention of new emission-reduction technologies. (For more on the impact of the ozone rule, see the BRT's national ozone map.)
Speaker Boehner responded in a statement calling on the White House to release cost estimates for all of the 219 economically significant new regulatory actions -- those with an economic impact of $100 million or more -- planned by the Administration. Boehner:
The combined cost of these seven new regulatory actions alone could be more than $100 billion, according to the information released by the White House today. These costs will be felt by the American people in the form of fewer jobs and slower economic growth. And we know from the Administration’s own disclosures that there are 212 other regulatory actions in the works, each with an estimated cost to our economy of more than $100 million. At a time like this, with our economy struggling to create jobs, it’s misguided for the federal government to be imposing so many new rules with such enormous costs, even when some of those rules may be well-intentioned.
On Monday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told his caucus members that blocking regulatory excess would be a central part of the Republican focus on jobs once Congress returns from recess: "By pursuing a steady repeal of job-destroying regulations, we can help lift the cloud of uncertainty hanging over small and large employers alike, empowering them to hire more workers."
It's not just Republicans who recognize the harm that regulatory overkill is causing the economy. Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh was on FoxNews this morning, warning of the impact of regulations such as the ozone rule. The priority should be jobs, jobs, jobs, Bayh said, adding, "Everything else needs to be deferred until we get the economy headed in the right direction."
Even the President's policy goals have been thwarted by rigid, delay-causing regulatory excess. Investor's Business Daily this week reported, "Green Jobs' Arteries Clogged By Davis-Bacon":
President Obama's green jobs agenda has become a victim of its own red tape. Several internal reports show that state-level projects have stalled for years due to federal regulations favored by labor and green groups — big boosters of the green jobs push....
Audit reports by the Energy Department's Inspector General Of fice offer some clues as to why: Trying to comply with federal reg ulations such as the Davis-Bacon Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Buy American Act has stalled many projects.
Davis-Bacon, eh? Did that issue come up in the President's media event pushing for passage of a highway bill? No? Perhaps the President can mention the issue in his jobs address to Congress next week. What a game-changer: "And ladies and gentlemen, to maximize the jobs impact of this critical infrastructure legislation, I call on Congress to lift the prevailing wage requirements in the highway bill extension."
That would be a game-changer.