EPA to Put Environmental Justice on the Cost-Benefit Ledger

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to better account for environmental justice when analyzing the costs and benefits of proposed regulations, experts said yesterday at an EPA symposium. BNA news service (subscription) reports:

Participants in a panel discussion on economic analysis frameworks suggested that EPA consider new methods that allow regulators to measure the broadest health impacts and compare those health benefits with those resulting from policies that protect the most vulnerable populations. […]

While cost-benefit analyses have traditionally focused on how efficiently a rule can provide health benefits, they do not often consider how equitably those benefits are distributed, panel moderator Kelly Maguire, an economist at EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, said. 

Under the leadership of administrator Lisa Jackson, EPA has shown a renewed spirit for environmental justice, which EPA defines as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Too many environmental hazards disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities.

I would be wary of attempts to assign a dollar figure to environmental justice impacts, but in principle I do believe it is important to more fully gauge the distribution of environmental regulations’ benefits – and, more importantly, the risks of not regulating – across all peoples and places. (Costs are already well counted.)

The strategy of accounting for environmental justice seems consistent with the cost-benefit analysis philosophy of Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA sets economic analysis guidelines for all regulatory agencies, and reviews the individual cost-benefit analysis accompanying significant proposed and final rules.

In a speech at the American University Washington College of Law last month, Sunstein spoke of the Obama administration’s cost-benefit strategy:

“We’ve tried to engage in cost-benefit analysis…in a way that is at least as rigorous as ever before, I hope more rigorous than ever before, but also in a way that is humanized in the sense that it takes account of qualitative and well as quantitative considerations – monetized values aren’t all that matter; it takes account of distributional considerations – are people in distress being helped or hurt?; and it takes account emphatically of the interests of future generations.” 

Again, while I fret over the rigor of cost-benefit analysis, Sunstein’s comments sound good in principle. Unfortunately, OIRA has not revised its cost-benefit guidelines to reflect this shift in priorities (I’d prefer they scrap all together the current guidelines written by Bush-era administrator John Graham). It is unclear whether agencies are better accounting for those benefits of regulation that cannot be “monetized” – things like lives saved, hardships avoided, cleaner skies and waters, good health, and other types of social gains that can be achieved through environmental justice.

EPA expects to issue this year its own guidelines for the consideration of environmental justice in rulemaking, according to BNA. OIRA ought to follow suit, overhauling cost-benefit guidance for all agencies in a way that ensures it is a helpful tool for decisionmakers, not a deregulatory wedge. A new, “humanized” approach, to borrow Sunstein’s term, could be reflected in new cost-benefit guidelines and/or in the new regulatory executive order President Obama promised last year.

(Matthew Madia 03/19/10; 0 comments)

The Recovery Act is Working

 

Thirty-eight of fifty-four economists can't be wrong. That's the number of economists who, in a recent survey by the Wall Street Journal ($), said that "the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses." In other words, 70 percent of economists think that the Recovery Act has helped the nation. Looks like somebody's been reading the many, many official reports which have repeatedly said the exact same thing. But I guess something just isn't true until a majority of randomly selected Ph.Ds say it, right?

And speaking of job creation, Robert Broadsky from Government Executive has a good catch: March 17 was the last day for recipients to hand in any changes to their reports from last quarter, and because of these changes the Recovery Board has revised that quarter's reported job count number up to 608,203, from 599,108. Further proof that the Recovery Act is helping prop up the nation's economy. Just remember that these numbers, for the October 1-December 31 quarter, and are not cumulative, and cannot be added to job counts from other quarters, thanks to new reporting guildlines explained here.

(Sam Rosen-Amy 03/19/10; 0 comments)

Sunshine Week 2010 Webcast TODAY @ Noon

 

On his first full day in office, President Obama committed his Administration "to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." To help meet that goal, the Administration has issued an Open Government Directive and a new Memorandum on Freedom of Information Act and Attorney General Guidelines. The Administration has also launched an expansive effort to open up data to developers, advocates, and the public via Data.gov. Join OpenTheGovernment.org for this three panel event to hear our panelists -- transparency experts from inside and outside government-- discuss these initiatives and their effect on the public. Panelists will also take questions from the live and viewing audience.  Watch live here.

(Roger Strother 03/19/10; 0 comments)

Senate Rejects Arbitrary Budget Caps

 

Thanks in no small part to the 1,146 emails you sent in the past 48 hours, the Senate just voted down the Sessions-McCaskill amendment, which would have instituted draconian discretionary budget caps for the next three fiscal years. The amendment lost on a 56-40 vote, failing to reach the 60-vote margin it needed by only four votes.

Take pride in your victory, people. Thin margins such as these show just how important your voice is. Thank you for telling your senators to vote no to fiscal irresponsibility.

Image by Flickr user arthit used under a Creative Commons license.

(Sam Rosen-Amy 03/18/10; 3 comments)

White House Increasing Pressure over Invalid Rules

 

Federal rulemaking agencies continue to fail to submit new regulations to Congress, potentially invalidating them, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

stepsAccording to a December 2009 CRS report, in FY 2008, 28 federal agencies and cabinet departments failed to send copies of 101 final rules to GAO, the investigative arm of Congress. As of Oct. 26, 2009, 96 of the 101 rules still had not been submitted, raising questions about their legality. The problem was not limited to 2008; agencies have been forgetting to send rules to GAO since the late 1990’s.

Why is this step important? Typically, when agencies publish final rules in the Federal Register, they also identify a future date when the rule will take effect, often 30 or 60 days after the publication date. When the rule takes effect, it is considered to have the full force of law. However, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), passed in 1996, added another step that requires that final rules "shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect." The act also requires submission to the Comptroller General, the head of GAO. (Click here for more.)

According to a new CRS report, 31 rules were not submitted to GAO during FY 2009. In January, GAO contacted the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to alert officials of the 31 missing rules, according to CRS. Since then, 26 of the 31 have been submitted to GAO, eliminating any possible legal questions about their validity.

While it is obvious a problem still exists, evidence indicates progress is being made to bring agencies into full compliance with the CRA’s submission requirement. Agencies’ failure to send 31 rules in FY 2009 appears exemplary when compared to the 101 missing rules from FY 2008.

OIRA may deserve credit here. After many years of dodging responsibility for this issue, OIRA is now more regularly communicating with agencies about the CRA submission issue. BNA news service (subscription) reports:

OIRA officials told CRS that after receiving GAO's January 2010 letter, the deputy administrator of OIRA sent an e-mail to federal agencies that reminded them of their obligation to submit their rules to GAO and Congress, and provided another copy of OMB's 1999 guidance on the Congressional Review Act.

They also said that OIRA planned to send similar e-mails twice each year to agency regulatory officials, and planned to give GAO a list of those agency officials so that GAO could resolve any concerns about unsubmitted rules more quickly, the CRS report stated. Finally, OIRA officials said they planned to raise the issue of compliance with the CRA at meetings of the regulatory working group, the report stated. 

Image courtesy of Flickr user So gesehen, used under a Creative Commons license.

(Matthew Madia 03/18/10; 0 comments)

Boeing Border Fence on Indefinite Hold

 

The political circus pamphlet the POLITICO recently reported that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has halted development of Boeing's disastrous and budget-bloated Southwest border fence project known as SBInet. Napolitano noted in a press release on the matter that the fence project, which uses an intricate system of sensors and cameras, "has been plagued with cost overruns and missed deadlines."

The Wall

According to the article, Secretary Napolitano is "withholding funding for the program’s first deployment until a review she ordered in January is finished." The secretary has also diverted $50 million in stimulus funds from the project. Homeland Security will put those diverted funds toward "other tested, commercially available security technology along the Southwest border."

Also according to POLITICO, during recent testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Napolitano intimated her desire to move away from the troubled program. She claimed that she was "not satisfied with SBInet," and stated that Homeland Security would need "to reevaluate how those technology dollars are used and whether there are other technologies...that would be more mobile, better, easier to maintain and easier to operate."

OMB Watch has endlessly documented the defense contracting boondoggle that Boeing's SBInet is, and we're glad that the federal government is starting to take notice. We can only hope that this hold is a step toward permanent cancellation of the project.

Image by Flickr user fredcamino used under a Creative Commons license.

(Gary Therkildsen 03/18/10; 1 comment)

Rulemaking and the Open Government Agenda

 

It’s Sunshine Week, which means it’s as good a time as any to talk about rulemaking transparency.

When it comes to regulations, interested parties want to see more than just the text of the rule and the published notice explaining the rule (a.k.a. the preamble); they want to see information on why the agency made the decisions it made.

Disclosure of decisionmaking materials allows the public to hold agencies accountable. If an agency says it is relying on a particular scientific study, the public needs access to that study to make sure the agencies’ conclusion matches the science. If an agency’s decision is intended to reflect the policy priorities of the agency head or the president, documents or communications of those priorities need to be made available.

Currently, federal agencies are developing open government plans in response to the White House’s Open Government Directive. Agencies are accepting ideas for their plans through the end of the week. The plans are due April 7.

OMB Watch is urging a number of agencies to disclose more information in their rulemaking dockets. Among other items, agencies should disclose:

  • Any study, research, or other input used during the rulemaking, regardless of whether the information ultimately informed the decisionmaking;
  • All written communications among federal offices and agencies, including the White House Office of Management and Budget;
  • All substantive communications, both written and oral, between the agency and an outside party pertaining to the rulemaking.

(These recommendations are based in part on a report written by OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass and other regulatory experts titled Advancing the Public Interest through Regulatory Reform.) 

Not only should agencies disclose more information about their rulemakings, they should make sure that information is more widely available. The easiest way to do this is to make information available online.

Currently, agencies maintain rulemaking dockets in hard copy (the official version) and online at Regulations.gov, the centralized portal for finding, viewing, and commenting on regulations. But the paper docket and the online docket do not necessarily match. Different agencies disclose different types of information through Regulations.gov, and some agencies choose only to post the bare minimum. If the two dockets are not identical, users of the online dockets cannot be confident that they are getting the full story.

You can participate in the development of agencies’ open government plans for the rest of the week. Here are the links to the participation and voting platforms for select agencies with strong rulemaking programs:

(Matthew Madia 03/17/10; 0 comments)

Keep the Pressure on the Senate

 

UPDATE: We're now hearing that the vote will happen on Thursday (3/18).

We're hearing that the vote on the Sessions-McCaskill amendment will happen today at 5 (EDT) Thurs., March 18.

If you haven't done so yet, send a letter to your Senators and tell them that arbitrary limitations on federal spending is terrible budget-making.

Take action now!

(Craig Jennings 03/17/10; 0 comments)

Who's Answering the Phones at the IRS?

 

Have you recently tried calling the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to ask a question about your taxes? If you have, there's a good chance that the IRS never picked up. If you were lucky enough for your call to go through, you likely spent about 12 minutes on hold before you spoke to an IRS representative. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson highlighted these and other problems faced by taxpayers when she testified at a hearing this afternoon in front of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Hello...is anybody In There...Just Nod if You Can Hear me

Olson appeared before the subcommittee to discuss her office's 2009 Annual Report. She highlighted several areas where the government needs to improve the tax administration process – including reforming a harmful lien imposing process and improving the service's debt compromise procedures – but the problem Olson made her priority was the inadequacy of the IRS toll-free telephone service.

As Olson pointed out in her testimony, "Each year, tens of millions of taxpayers call the IRS seeking help with a wide variety of issues, including account questions and tax-filing questions." Unfortunately, in 2009 three out of every ten of those taxpayers couldn't ask their question because an IRS representative never picked up the phone. That's actually an improvement over 2008, when almost one out of every two calls did not go through. To be fair, in 2008 the IRS received a deluge of tax questions related to the Economic Stimulus Act passed in February of that year, and the service usually fields about 80 percent of its calls.

Still, the consequences of not answering a taxpayer's phone call are significant. Not only does the missed call feed into the stereotype of an unresponsive, dysfunctional government, but also the taxpayer may simply give up and not file a return. If the taxpayer does file without guidance, they will likely send in a flawed return, requiring further IRS resources down the line to correct the problem. If the taxpayer seeks out a third party for help, they must navigate the vast paid-tax-preparation landscape, which is filled with unscrupulous and untrained tax preparers – at least until next year.

The problem is a simple one of resources: the IRS doesn't have enough money to employ enough people to answer the phones. For her part, Olson recommends that Congress provide the IRS with enough money to raise their call-fielding success rate to 85 percent and lower their average wait time to 5 minutes. Olson doesn't attempt to put a price tag on these improvements, but it seems clear that the current IRS budget is not sufficient. Without these resources, too many taxpayers will continue to be left in the dark when filing their tax returns.

Image by Flickr user HeatedGroundPhotography used under a Creative Commons license.

(Gary Therkildsen 03/16/10; 0 comments)

Tell the Senate to Vote No on Disastrous Discretionary Spending Caps

 

In what looks like an attempt to out-fiscal-hawk President Obama, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have introduced an amendment that would impose strict limits on discretionary spending for the next three years. The amendment sets limits far lower than Obama's already low budget proposal, and it even includes a cap on defense discretionary spending, something the President's proposal does not do. Such caps would result in drastic cuts to many vital economic safety net programs and public protection agencies, negatively impacting the lives of millions of Americans. And while the two senators claim that the amendment will reduce the deficit, in reality, because discretionary spending is so little of the federal budget, the amendment's deficit-reducing effects will be minimal.

Enacting these caps would be the height of irresponsibility. Placing limits on discretionary spending locks in spending levels prior to knowing our nation's needs in the coming few years, which will leave us flat-footed and unable to respond to unforeseen challenges. Without thorough debate about whether these programs are protecting the well-being of the men, women, and children they serve, Congress will be ignoring its responsibility to meet the needs of the nation. A responsible budget is one that has the flexibility to fully fund the nation's priorities while maintaining sustainable levels of debt.

There are many reasons why the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is an irresponsible move that will bring harm to our nation:

  • Cuts to food safety programs will result in even more sickness and death caused by contaminants in the nation's food supply.
  • Cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) will restrict access to vital nutritional assistance that so many of our friends and neighbors need in these harsh economic times.
  • Cuts in the Treasury Department's budget will allow more tax cheats to break the law and escape paying their fair share of taxes.
  • Cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will hinder the nation's ability to prepare for hurricanes, blizzards, and climate change.

The Sessions-McCaskill amendment could force all of these things and more to happen, without thorough debate in Congress, simply because of arbitrary caps enacted years earlier. Even worse, the caps cannot be adjusted except by supermajority votes in both houses.

Long-term fiscal imbalances are a threat to the economy and should be addressed; however, the Sessions-McCaskill amendment does nothing to reverse the trend toward unsustainable national debt. And, in the short-term, reducing the federal budget deficit will stifle the emerging economic recovery while punching holes through the already frayed safety net.

Contact you senators using this form. Tell them that the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is bad for the nation and that we need a budget that responds to the needs of all Americans. Tell them to vote no on S.Amdt. 3453.

For more information, check out the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which has an excellent rundown on just how bad this amendment is.

Image by Flickr user talkradionews used under a Creative Commons license.

(Sam Rosen-Amy 03/16/10; 2 comments)