Oh, That’s Rich: EPA Promotes Its Job-Creating Programs

A news release was posted at the Environmental Protection Agency’s website Wednesday, “Tomorrow: White House, EPA, HUD and DOT Officials to Discuss Support for Job Creation and Economic Growth“:

WASHINGTON – White House Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan, and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood will hold a press conference at the National Press Club on Thursday, Oct. 21 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the Obama Administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities initiative and how it will work to support more livable and sustainable communities across the country. Through the initiative, EPA, HUD and DOT are announcing new, coordinated grants to help communities create more housing choices, make transportation more efficient and reliable, reinforce existing investments, and support vibrant and healthy neighborhoods that attract businesses.

The theory being that federal taxpayer dollars distributed to local governments to promote “smart growth” — more dense urban development with taxpayer-funded amenities — creates jobs. The federal responsibility — constitutional and statutory — for planning and development in Wheat Ridge, Colo., and Saginaw, Mich., is unclear, but the EPA considers it worth a press release.

That’s the jobs creation plan. Here’s the jobs destruction plan:

EPA Office of Air and Radiation: Significant Rules in the First 18 Months of the Bush and Obama Administrations

Source: OMB Watch

This chart comes from OMB Watch, an advocacy group that supports the expanded regulatory state, in its recent report, “The Obama Approach To Public Protection: Rulemaking.”

“Significant rules” are defined primarily as those that “[have] an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities…”

The current Environmental Protection Agency has proposed 42 major new air-related regulations in the first year and a half of the Obama Administration, each with an impact of at least $100 million on the economy and jobs. (That’s not even considering EPA’s other regulatory proposals in such areas as water quality.)

The rules will lead to a less productive, less competitive, less prosperous private sector in the United States, with employers spending resources on federal rules instead of hiring employees.

And here’s your planning grant.

Join the discussion 3 Comments

  • Mike Mitchell says:

    For the past 4 months I’ve been dealing directly with upcoming EPA rules and their economic and environmental impact and what is truly scary is the sloppy research and methodology they use to support their rulings. I would sooner believe a tree stump than their estimation of what constitutes a $100 million plus positive impact on our society.

  • Matt Madia says:

    Thank you for linking to our report. I have a few clarifications.

    As the link in the post shows, the $100 million economic impact is one of several factors that determine whether a rule is significant. Most of EPA’s rules are significant for those other reasons, not because they meet the $100 million threshold. Only 7 of the 30 final rules and 13 of the 42 proposed rules are considered by the Office of Management and Budget to be “economically significant,” i.e. having a $100 million estimated impact annually.

    Moreover, economic impact includes not only costs to regulated entities but benefits to society as well. Most EPA rules, whether deemed economically significant or not, are expected to yield large economic benefits in the form of reduced health care costs, avoidances of lost work time, avoidances of remediation costs, etc. In many cases, EPA estimates that regulatory benefits will far exceed regulatory costs.

    Matt Madia
    Regulatory Policy Analyst
    OMB Watch

  • Oh my… gotta love the gov’t trying to create more jobs. Why not let the businesses and entrepreneurs keep more of their money (less taxes) and let the free market create jobs.

    The gov’t has no clue about stimulating an economy.

Leave a Reply