Obama’s Regulatory Overture: Digging a Trench or a Grave?


The Center for Progressive Reform—among of the most pro-regulatory organizations you’ll find in Washington—isn’t pleased with Obama’s announcement on Tuesday that the administration plans to overhaul existing regulations and evaluate pending rules with an eye toward being more business-friendly. The group takes particular issue with his pledge in Wall Street Journal ope-ed “to review outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.”

“By casting the discussion in those terms, the President swallows the GOP’s frame for the debate hook, line, and sinker,” writes CPR president Rena Steinzor, a professor of law at the University of Maryland, in their blog. She argues that the president is moving “to the right” on regulation, as this executive order and the op-ed indicate. This move could have particular consequences for environmental and health rules from federal agencies, many of which are already under attack from foes of regulation.

In Obama’s op-ed and in the administration’s remarks, they point to saccharin, which though cleared by the Food and Drug Adminstration was considered a hazardous substance by the EPA until last December 2010, as an example of an unnecessary reg that they have already done away with. But as Steinzor notes, that rule wasn’t costing jobs or burdening the economy; it’s a rather trivial example that neither jibes with the stated reasons behind the administration’s overhaul nor gets at the heart of the kind of rules that corporations and anti-regulatory politicians want to see thrown out. Steinzor argues that the adminstration’s initiative could have insidious impacts:

Forcing beleaguered agencies to “look back” and find more saccharin examples will have real costs, though, because they are already pushed to their limits by funding shortfalls that give them, in many cases, the same budgets in real dollars as they had in the mid-1980’s, when the White House also was hounding them to control themselves. Does the President really intend regulators to freeze-frame efforts to solve public health crises that abound all around them so that they can engage in a draining search to placate companies already rushing to Republicans in Congress with regulatory “hit lists”?

What the foes of regulation are gunning for are rules like those the EPA is currently undertaking on planet-warming emissions—much more complicated, far-reaching, and important than a sugar substitute. Perhaps it’s heartening, then, that Obama explicitly lists the administrations work on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles as a “victory,” and heralds the Clean Air Act as “common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.”

It’s clear, though, that the administration is going to be on defense on the new EPA regulations —and adopting the mantra of its adversaries isn’t likely to help them on that front.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate