The chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (R-Calif) is moving to slash through federal red tape and promote business and job growth. Unlike President Obama’s Keynesian ideology and stunning failure to create jobs, Issa is going to America’s free-enterprise sources to find out which regulations block progress and what will add more jobs to the economy.
Issa wrote, for instance, to the American Petroleum Institute (API), “In fiscal year 2010, federal agencies promulgated 43 major new regulations (ranging) from new limits on ‘effluent’ discharges to new rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. The new limits on ‘effluent’ discharges from construction sites will cost $810.8 million annually resulting in the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs….This new burden is on top of the $1.75 trillion estimated burden of existing regulations.
Issa’s letter then asked for API’s “assistance in identifying existing and proposed regulations that have negatively impacted job growth[.]”
Issa sent a similar letter to other trade associations and to companies asking for help in cutting through government oversight and to foster business growth. Issa letters went, for example, to Toyota, Ford, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers as to which regulations “make it difficult to turn a profit and, more importantly, add jobs.” Think tanks also were recipients of Issa inqueries.
The current debate over harsh government rules is targeting efforts taken mainly by the Obama administration, “including new fuel economy standards that are phasing in between 2012 and 2016, are singularly expensive to implement, and will cost jobs and profits,” according to a Jan. 6 Auto Blog. Even though the standards would boost fuel efficiency a bit, they are expected to raise the cost of a new car by $1,000. With its huge labor pool, the auto industry is an integral part of the effort Rep. Issa is spearheading.
There’s little doubt the Issa outreach to the business community is a big part of the drama to portray the White House and Congressional Democrats as the parents of the job-killing regulatory environment. The Issa letters met with skepticism from Democrats. Some called it an example of Republicans being too cozy with the business community, a Politico story said. Democrat strategists are trying to decide whether to fight or run from Issa. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) stressed that curbing damaging regulations would be among his party’s top priorities. He said most people know that jobs are produced mainly by small businesses. But large companies also employ hundreds of thousands of men and women.
The American Petroleum Institute answered Issa, with several examples. One explained that the oil and gas industry “continues to seek clarification and certainty regarding proposed regulations ordered by the new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE),” which the bossy Interior Secretary Ken Salazar set up. It replaces the former Minerals Management Service, which kept track of drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico. API expressed concern about the new agency’s current “regulatory environment.”
Another matter API addressed is a national ocean policy under development, API said “could seriously impact the energy sector by excluding or restricting operations [by] proposals such as coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP)…a tool based on the notion of an inherent conflict and incompatibility among ocean uses. This policy adds a redundant layer of bureaucracy, creates confusion and unnecessary conflict with existing statutes, and could delay or restrict oil and gas exploration and development, potentially significantly reducing job-related capital expenditures and decreasing our domestic energy supply.”
Coastal and marine special planning (CMSP) is a vivid example of the regulatory gobbledygook Interior has invented. CMSP is described as “a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial [translation: having the characteristics of space] planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas…to reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economical, environmental, security, and social objectives.” Now, there’s a mouthful of bureaucratic all-purposefulness.
As to energy exploration and operations on-shore, API wrote Rep. Issa: “The dominant issue that affects operators on public lands in the Intermountain West [where huge supplies of natural gas are untapped] is the series of efforts under this Administration to close off or to scale back oil and gas leasing. In other words, the impacts on development of publicly owned domestic energy resources on public lands start with administrative decisions not to make them available.”
Another example supplied by API involves the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Use of this law “restricts public lands acreage for lease or to restrict oil and gas operations on those leases.” For example, the greater sage-grouse was considered for protection under the ESA. There’s an overlap between the sage grouse range and Bureau of Land Management-administered lands with natural gas potential. For those few readers unfamiliar with the greater sage grouse, it is the largest of the sage grouses. They are ground-dwelling birds up to 30 inches long and two feet tall. The bird’s legs are feathered to the base of its toes. The Fish and Wildlife Service hasn’t designated the bird as “protected” because other species face more immediate extinction. So, the greater sage grouse is merely a candidate. Of course, we know not every candidate wins.
As temperatures dip and gas prices rise, some Americans may wonder if heating our homes, running our job-creating factories and operating our autos may be more important than the possible endangerment of the greater sage grouse. Even some shivering Democrats may think so.
Leave a Reply