Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
The White House released OMB's Annual Report. It was easy to miss amidst all the chaos in the White House.

"The antipathy it expresses toward federal regulation falls firmly within the GOP mainstream. Republicans have been complaining about “burdensome” and “job-killing” regulations for so long that their opposition to any particular health, safety, or environmental regulation is now just taken for granted.

For instance, why would the Environmental Protection Agency close a program investigating the effects of toxins on children’s health? Is there some evidence that the money is wasted or poorly spent? Why would the EPA allow more unregulated disposal of toxic coal ash? Don’t people in coal regions deserve clean air and water? Is there any reason to think coal ash is currently well-regulated?

These questions barely come up anymore. Republicans oppose regulations because they are regulations; it’s become reflexive, both for the party and for the media the covers them"


MB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:

Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion
By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false."

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/6/17077330/trump-regulatory-agenda-omb
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member

I thought you guys cared so much about miners and their communities?

"The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Thursday it will scrap Obama-era rules governing coal ash disposal.
An EPA study from 2010 showed that "people living within one mile of unlined coal ash ponds can have a 1 in 50 risk of cancer—more than 2,000 times higher than what the EPA considers acceptable," as cited by Sierra Club."
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
So the DOJ has 3 regs that cost between .9 and 1.2 billion dollars that realize between 1.9 and 4.8 billion in benefits what are they? is anyone but a hard leftist going to agree that they are a benefit? Why can't they nail down a number and have to put in a range? Every agency listed is this way so apparently this is more of an opinion than a true synopsis of a hard savings.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I thought you guys cared so much about miners and their communities?

"The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Thursday it will scrap Obama-era rules governing coal ash disposal.
An EPA study from 2010 showed that "people living within one mile of unlined coal ash ponds can have a 1 in 50 risk of cancer—more than 2,000 times higher than what the EPA considers acceptable," as cited by Sierra Club."

Your problem is you are just a mindless parrot. Me..I actually read the details surrounding those coal ash regulations and understand how flawed they were. And miners are ticked pink about it. ;-)
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Your problem is you are just a mindless parrot. Me..I actually read the details surrounding those coal ash regulations and understand how flawed they were. And miners are ticked pink about it. ;-)

I doubt they are ticked anything. I also doubt you know a miner.


I also bet if one of those coal ash ponds were located near your precious water view you would start to care since it would actually affect you. But since its kids in coal mining town somewhere who cares?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
So the DOJ has 3 regs that cost between .9 and 1.2 billion dollars that realize between 1.9 and 4.8 billion in benefits what are they? is anyone but a hard leftist going to agree that they are a benefit? Why can't they nail down a number and have to put in a range? Every agency listed is this way so apparently this is more of an opinion than a true synopsis of a hard savings.



Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion

This is a benefit of at least 400-600% and you are still not happy?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion

This is a benefit of at least 400-600% and you are still not happy?

If you believe the fiction. ;-) So I'm sure you are happy indeed.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion

This is a benefit of at least 400-600% and you are still not happy?

What is the benefit? Just one out of the aggregate will do. Their idea of a benefit may be we've employed 50 new government workers, but you can't tell from their writing. And, again, why is it given as a range? Don't they know what the costs and benefits are?
 
Top