1. Two-Face Talk about "Up or Down Votes": The GOP mantra when radical conservative judges were renominated to the appeals courts -- nominees so radical that they threaten the very ability of the federal government to protect the public -- was that parliamentary maneuvers such as holds and filibusters should not prevent the nominees from going to the floor and getting an up-or-down vote (in other words, being allowed to simply be elevated to lifetime judgeships without any real fight). Much of this talk died down when a centrist coalition agreed to tie the hands of Democratic Senators and "save" the filibuster by making it irrelevant. Apparently, though, hashing things out in the open only matters when it comes to lifetime appointments to the federal bench, not when it comes to $60 billion tax cuts for the wealthy.

2. Unfunded Mandates -- Now They Care about Them, Now They Don't: We have been monitoring developments that threaten to expand the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. A recent change to an UMRA parliamentary procedure was invoked to kill a proposal to raise the minimum wage. So "unfunded mandates" -- in the GOP parlance, it means opposing protections of the public on the grounds that federal policy decisions result in costs to state and local governments -- matter when it comes to killing the minimum wage, but not when it comes to kicking abused and neglected children out of federally-funded foster care. By restricting eligibility for the Title IV-E entitlement, the House bill shifts the cost for the now ineligible abused and neglected children entirely to the states. (By the way, those kids aren't getting any less abused or neglected.) Get more details on the cut programs here.) Just goes to show that the phrase "unfunded mandates" does not signify a problem that demands solutions; instead, it is a political weapon, deployed to freeze new public protections and then conveniently holstered when it would otherwise threaten an anti-government agenda.

The cost-benefit analysis showed that the President's Clear Skies bills perform no better than regulations already on the book. Furthermore, though the analysis predicts lower costs for the Clear Skies Act compared to competing legislation, it also predicts far fewer benefits.

While Clear Skies would cost less than $3 billion and produce $66 billion to $78 billion in benefits, Carper's bill (S.843, introduced in the 108th), which goes further in reducing emissions and setting strict deadlines, would cost $10 billion and produce $109 billion to $128 billion in benefits. Jeffords bill (S.150), which seeks the greatest level of emissions reductions, could produce up to $162 billion worth of benefit and cost $41 billion.

You would think that these numbers would clearly indicate that the Clear Skies initiative does not go far enough in protecting the public. Stricter regulations could produce tens of billions of dollars more in added benefit. Unfortunately, cost-benefit analysis—especially as wielded by this administration--consistently sides against more stringent protections, seeking to minimize costs rather than maximize benefits. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson actually pointed to the cost-benefit analysis as a clear indication that Bush's proposal was the best option, even though the facts clearly state otherwise.

Even if cost-benefit analysis is used to maximize benefit, it still works as a one-way ratchet, consistently overestimating cost and underestimating benefit. While costs can be easily monetized, many benefits are more difficult to quantify. Cost-benefit analysis tends to focus only on risks for which there is a standard monetization, such as the risk of cancer or death. Other risks, such as asthma, neurological disorders or the impact of climate change, that can be associated with power plant pollution are often not folded into the cost-benefit equation.

For more information on how cost-benefit analysis gets it wrong, read "Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Needed?"

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 02:29:52 PM