Politics
FILE - In this Feb. 9, 2011 file photo, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File) FILE - In this Feb. 9, 2011 file photo, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)  

Inhofe bill would shine sunlight on regulation costs

Photo of John Rossomando
John Rossomando
Contributor
  • See All Articles
  • Send Email
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      John Rossomando

      John Rossomando is an experienced journalist whose work has been featured in numerous publications such as CNSNews.com, Newsmax and Crisis Magazine. He also served as senior managing editor of The Bulletin, a 100,000-circulation daily newspaper in Philadelphia and received the Pennsylvania Associated Press Managing Editors first-place award in 2008 for his reporting.

      To contact John Rossomando please visit: <a href="http://therossomandoreport.com/contact-me/">http://therossomandoreport.com/contact-me/</a>

Environmental regulations drain hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. economy each year, and it mostly goes unnoticed by the public.

But proposed legislation from Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe could make the cost of such government interference more transparent.

“Everybody here is focusing on spending and taxes,” Inhofe said, “but what most people don’t realize is the cost of regulation is just as much as the cost of all of the taxes … it’s just less detectable.”

The legislation, known as the CARE Act, would require the U.S. Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency to publicize — in terms of jobs and money — the direct economic costs of the regulations they publish under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

Inhofe’s bill currently has more than 20 Republican senators onboard, and he hopes to attract support from centrist Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Inhofe contends that the EPA issues regulations without considering how they will affect the economy, and that it imposes regulations without taking into account whether or not they will kill jobs. (Rep. David Rivera reportedly under investigation by FBI, IRS)

EPA Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus underscored the senator’s point when he testified before a House subcommittee that his agency had not taken jobs into account when it issued regulations this year pertaining to coal ash and other fossil-fuel byproducts.

The CARE Act would require the EPA and the Department of Transportation to consider the impact on employment of all new air pollution regulations.

“The costs of the regulations on greenhouse gases are about $300 to $400 billion a year,” Inhofe said. “The ozone regulation that he [President Obama] is about to announce next week is huge, and we are talking about some $90 billion.”

Inhofe’s bill would also establish a Cumulative Regulatory Assessment Committee comprised of the secretaries of agriculture, commerce, defense, energy, and labor, the chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers, the EPA administrator, the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and the chief counsel of the Advocacy Office of the Small Business Administration.

This committee would be charged with evaluating the impact of regulations on employment in each segment of the economy, on production and labor demands in the manufacturing and commercial sectors, on the impact of domestic refining regulations on heating oil and petrochemical prices, and on the potential for undermining the U.S. manufacturing industry among others.

Inhofe has his eyes particularly fixed on the Obama administration’s effort to administratively impose “cap and trade” rules. (Senate kills Cut, Cap and Balance)

“The outrage of the year is that we are not only trying to spend money to regulate things they couldn’t do legislatively, but we are sending money to China so that they can regulate their industries,” Inhofe said. “Here we owe China $1.2 trillion, and here we are talking about sending them money for their climate program.”

Myron Ebell, director of energy and public policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller that many of these regulations provide questionable cost benefits when public health gains are measured against job losses.

Ebell contends the Clean Air Act has successfully eliminated up to 98 percent of all particulate matter from the air that was responsible for creating smog, but new regulations initiated today have far more questionable justifications.

  • diamndgirl

    They don’t make ‘em any better than Inhofe…he’s been a One-Man Wrecking Crew to Boxer and her BS for years now…cannot wait until he takes control again away from Boxer the Bitch from the Greenie-Weenie Agendas…there fake science (BS) at that.

  • Jean Sartre

    In Ho Fe is the only person in America, perhaps the entire world, who has ALL of the ANSWERS to climate change… simply ask him and he will gladly tell you.

    Conversely, and unfortunately, he also is equiped with the dimmest bulb on the entire planet, and thus, could not possibly shine any light on anything…

  • citizen

    Sen. Joe Manchin from West Virginia is a centrist when he talks; he is Harry Reid with an accent when he votes. How a West Virginia senator can be so comfortable with a progressive EPA controlling the coal industry is beyond me. Stop watching his lips move and look at his voting record. Big Joe may be in for a surprise come the next election.

    • Jean Sartre

      Me thinks YOU will be the ONE surprised… along with your cheap, dirty coal polluting brethren…

  • RedneckJim

    One problem is the government created agencies to address particular “problems” and when those “problems” were solved, it left the agencies in a position where they had to create new “problems” to address in order to justify their jobs. There’s an agency in California that is tasked with finding 10 new causes of cancer every year. I remember when the put peanut butter on their list of carcinogenics!

    Here’s a thought: SHUT THEM DOWN AND GIVE THE POWER BACK TO THE STATES WHERE IT BELONGS! This “commerce cause” justification for the Feds sticking their noses into everything needs to stop. Overturn Wickard v. Filburn NOW while we still have some semblance of an agricultural economy left! Talk about a moment of mass-delusion!

    • Jean Sartre

      Yeah, let’s overturn the Constitution too…

  • yportbill

    AMEN Senator Inhofe, AMEN!!!!!!!!!

  • Jawknee

    Good. People need to understand why our energy costs are so high. They need to see that it’s NOT the “greedy” oil and utility companies, rather it’s the greed federal government.