New Feature

I've been mulling over starting a new feature on this blog.  Since this was inspired by Senator Johnson, I thought of calling it The Johnson Watch, but as I'm sure I'll want to include other legislators in the joy, I'll have to find a different name.  Suggestions, please.



Here is Senator Johnson in his newsletter of Friday, July 29:

Senator Johnson Introduces Regulation Moratorium & Job Preservation Act

According to the White House, we’re now into the third year of the 'recovery.’ But job growth is anemic, and companies are still laying off workers. You would think that Washington would be focused on job creation. Instead, the White House is intent on adding new layers of job-killing regulation.

With unemployment at 9.2 percent, and employers nationwide fearful about the Obama agenda, regulators should take a pause. The EPA’s Boiler MACT rule for example, would cost as much as $20.7 billion, and risk 338,000 jobs.  There’s no reason for the EPA to go forward with such a costly new rule when the economy is in terrible shape. My legislation gives workers and employers a        break.

During the Obama Administration, the unemployment rate has never been lower than it was the day the President was sworn in, when it was at 7.8%  My legislation prohibits federal agencies from implementing any new significant regulatory actions until the nation’s unemployment rate falls to 7.7%.  It allows the President to waive the rule for regulations dealing with national security, or national emergency. It is cosponsored by 19 Senators.

Let's go through his statements individually.

1. You would think that Washington would be focused on job creation. Instead, the White House is intent on adding new layers of job-killing regulation.  And how many bills related to job creation has the Republicans in Congress written?  A cursory search in the Thomas site reveals that when it comes to jobs, Republicans in Congress are more interested in scoring political points (HR 182) or advancing their agenda (repealing health care reform, deregulation) than actual job creation.  But really, what do you call the "Stimulus"?  It was intended to preserve jobs & to create jobs.  Economists generally credit the Stimulus for the fact the economy isn't worse than it is now. Doesn't anybody get any credit for that? Certainly not the Republicans-they insisted on tax breaks and cuts in the Stimulus which were the most ineffective part of the bill. But the Stimulus-always intended to be temporary-is fading, and the economy is still in crisis.  Republicans apparently are more interested in a bogus debt ceiling debate than actual job creation.
2. "Job-Killing Regulation" is a favorite catch phrase tossed around to justify deregulation (despite the fact that deregulation itself causes problems-such as the financial crash that caused the economic crisis we are in).  In this context, though, he's referring to the EPA's MACT regulations.  He doesn't bother to explain how they will impact people, so I took the liberty of looking it up.  Apparently it has to do with air pollution regulations covering boilers and incinerators.  There were many hearings held, many opportunities for feedback, and apparently the final rule has been delayed.  While I'm no expert-the word "toxic" tends to make me all for the MACT rule-it does appear that there is widespread controversy over this rule.  Industries have always opposed new regulations, and they're always going to destroy the industries.  But somehow industries go on.  Remember seat belts and other safety features? Auto industries fought those, too.  So I tend to take those protestations with a barrel of salt.  I, however, would like to point out that many corporations and businesses are sitting on sackfuls of cash that they are not using to hire people.  Requiring them to upgrade and/or replace equipment would be one way of forcing them to make investments that would create jobs.  So this might actually be beneficial.
3. My legislation prohibits federal agencies from implementing any new significant regulatory actions until the nation’s unemployment rate falls to 7.7%.  Since it is predicted that it will be a slow recovery, this would have the effect of preventing the government from performing its duties in any significant way for years.  Maybe he looks at that as a key feature, but I'm sure the Chesapeake Bay fishermen wouldn't look at it that way as their fishing stock is being decimated by dead zones in the bay resulting from agricultural pollution runoff.  In that instance, EPA action is called for.  But Senator Johnson apparently would prefer to see hundreds, if not thousands of sea food-related jobs lost in that region than to have the EPA act.
4. I gotta return to this line, "employers nationwide fearful about the Obama agenda".  Republicans love to imagine that people are so fearful of Obama, but let's look at what are employers fearful about right now.  Why, that Republican hostage-takers will send this country into a default as they refuse to compromise during the debt ceiling negotiation.  Essentially the Republicans have triggered a pseudo crisis that is turning into a real crisis through their own actions.  If the "fear" of employers were a genuine concern, Senator Johnson and other Republicans wouldn't have took our economy hostage. They are about to do much more damage than EPA's MACT rule ever would.

Update:  As noted here, EPA is hardly to blame for the economy-as much as some would like to.  This points to a graph showing that industries regulated by EPA-such as mining, oil & gas, are actually producing jobs.  Facts matter, and facts don't support the assertion that the EPS is at root of all of our economic woes.