Post by Ryan Maue
EPA Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus should be given credit for showing up Thursday to an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing, but may not be returning any time soon. Let’s just say his performance was cringe-inducing as he spun like a top attempting to deflect the very pointed, and basic yes-or-no questions of Rep. Cory Gardner (R – Colorado). An exasperated Stanislaus even resorted to a face-palm maneuver to regain his rhetorical footing. Of course, YouTube video exists…see below.
It’s clear that the GOP wants to eliminate the EPA’s current attempt/ability to regulate greenhouse gases (CO2) and, here, coal-ash, and is using its newly acquired power in the House to call hearings, demand/compel Obama administration officials to testify, and expose the job-killing nature of the EPA’s regulations. In other words, this is how politics works. The liberal media’s lack of coverage of this “inconsistency” in word versus deed with the Obama EPA demonstrates how in-the-tank the media is for the ’12 re-election. Ideology is more important than jobs.
Right wing outlets are hyping the performance of the EPA deputy as a victory and tacit admission that the EPA greenhouse regulations will kill (civility alert!) jobs. From the DAILY CALLER:
“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.
Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles…
Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
“Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.
“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs… and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”
Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.
“I’d like to see a list of all of the rules that you have proposed that haven’t taken into account jobs,” Gardner said. “We need to know if the EPA considers jobs in their analysis and whether you have, and whether EPA’s position is to consider jobs when it does an economic analysis.”
Stanislaus then replied saying EPA considers jobs in all of its economic analysis, but that the form of the analysis is driven by the requirements rules that are under consideration.
The EPA official’s testimony has generated negative reactions from pro-business advocates who say Stanislaus’s testimony shows the agency is out of touch with reality and is indifferent to job creation.
The painful testimony reaches a crescendo at the 3:00 minute mark, when the EPA bureaucrat appears to be looking for an exit. At least Stanislaus showed up. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is unavailable for testimony with a fully booked schedule, including her speech Saturday night at the Socialist Youth Climate Conference in Washington D.C. From POLITICO:
House Republicans aren’t happy that top EPA officials are skipping hearings on efforts to roll back the agency’s regulations.
“We could call them the Evaporating Personnel Administration, I guess,” Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton said Friday. “They don’t seem to ever show up and be accountable.”
“I do find it troubling once again that Lisa Jackson once again is a no show at a very important hearing that she’s had every opportunity to be in attendance,” Barton said. “The MACT truck is about to run us over all and she’s not even here to comment on those regulations.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Obama signed an Executive Order to streamline regulations: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review – Executive Order, Jan 18, 2011
The following is from: http://eyeonfreedom.com/index.php/obama-regulations-must-consider-equity-human-dignity-fairness-and-distributive-impacts/
[quote from article]
No sooner had Obama told the bureaucracies to subject all regulations to a cost- benefit test than the bureaucrats began telling reporters that they are already a model of modern efficiency, thank you very much. Among many others, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement that it was “confident” it wouldn’t need to alter a single current or pending rule. “In fact, EPA’s rules consistently yield billions in cost savings that make them among the most cost-effective in the government.”
Perhaps the EPA’s confidence owes to a little-noticed proviso in Mr. Obama’s order. When the agencies weigh costs and benefits, the order says, they should always consider “values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.” [emphasis added]
Talk about economic elasticities. Equity and fairness can be defined to include more or less anything as a benefit. Under this calculus, a rule might pass Mr. Obama’s cost-benefit test if it imposes $999 billion in hard costs but supposedly results in a $1 trillion increase in human dignity, whatever that means in bureaucratic practice. Another rule could pass muster even if it reduces work and investment, as long as it also lessens income inequality. [end of article quote]
The video reminds me of my conversation with our four-year old, after I had noticed that someone gave our family pet, the cat, a hair cut.
Actually I feel a bit sorry for Deputy Administrator Stanislaus. Ms. Jackson fed him to the wolves. She probably called him at the last minute with: “Mathy, can you fill in for me today at the hearing? I’ve got another meeting I simply must attend.”
I don’t actually know how competent he is, but I would imagine that’s the last time he’ll fall for that little trick.
[snip – call to violence ]
The EPA Deputy Administrator may be trying not to say the EPA analysis factors only the “JOBS CREATED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION” of the mandate…the growth of government jobs, more bureaucrats/compliance monitors. There seems to be negligible interest in, concern for, or thought of private sector jobs, which might explain the seeming befuddlement that such a concern would arise.
EPA greenhouse regulations will kill (civility alert!) jobs.
===================================
Lol, very nice Ryan!
I am astounded that there are people out here that don’t believe jobs should be a consideration for the EPA to implement rules or be part of any “comprehensive” economic analysis. If you’re not considering jobs, then it isn’t comprehensive and only measuring direct costs. Many EPA regulations increase “jobs”, but decrease wealth generation. Any decrease in jobs directly effects many other facets of society and should be considered before implementing any asinine regulation.
EPA would ~”not propose a rule where the costs exceed the benefits”?
Translated: “Capitalist dogs, your False Consciousness pales before
dem. inner city ghettosthe Communist Utopia!This is very interesting, and most revealing:
Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
Stanislaus then replied saying EPA considers jobs in all of its economic analysis, but that the form of the analysis is driven by the requirements rules that are under consideration.
Therefore, the form of the analysis in question did not involve economics, period. The requirements rules for the EPA Greenhouse Regulations was purely political in nature, at the order of the President, to carry out said policy.
There is no other way I can see that Mr. Stanislaus came to the hearing bereft of economic analysis findings.
Bottom line: The EPA has no economic analysis of the effects of Greenhouse Regulations, and has no intention of doing anything of the kind.
This is just one more example of the insanity we get into when government is allowed to ignore the constitution. The very first sentense in the constitution says all legislative authority is vested in the congress, not the EPA. But congress has allowed the EPA to make rules which carry the force of law and so we get this mess.
More examples-
Starting wars without a declaration of war by congress. And in the case of Libya without even consulting congress.
In another case involving the EPA, the agency was going to subject dairy and dairy product producers, processors, handlers and distributers to the Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule. Fortunately we dodged a bullet on that one, as the EPA changed their mind.
The TSA subjects air travelers to highly invasive body pat-down searches that involve touching the private parts of the travelers. The constitution says the government needs a search warrant to do that and the warrant can only be issued on probable cause. But the TSA doesn’t give a damn about the constitution. And they also think that having a TSA agent put her hands all over a frightened 6 year little girl is OK too. Was there probable cause there?
If we the people don’t rein in these blatant violation of the constitution by federal agencies we will lose the constitution and all of our rights will go with it.
Atomic Hairdryer says:
April 17, 2011 at 3:24 am
That is the crux of the matter. I distinctly heard the Nuremberg excuse: “We were just following orders,” although not exactly in those words. It was more like, “Well, clearly, the president wanted us to…”
Yup, it is there, at about 2:47, “Well, clearly, we up, we all, you know, and the president has made that commitment, and we have to look at job consequences.”
So is that then the open admission that the EPA did not look at job consequences? I guess that depends on the meaning of “directly”, provided that the meaning of “indirectly” is quite clear and as intended by Stanislaus.
After a few days no one will care anymore, especially considering the fact that there will never be a trial like the Nuremberg trials on any of this. It can all be done with impunity and total immunity.
Mike McMillan says:
April 16, 2011 at 11:22 pm (Edit)
“Right wing outlets are hyping the performance of the EPA deputy as a victory and tacit admission that the EPA greenhouse regulations will kill (civility alert!) jobs.
Right wing outlets? Like WUWT?”
No, but you know that the left wing outfits, i.e. the mainstream media, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, will never broadcast this. The folks of WUWT cross the political spectrum, but we are all dedicated to the truth.
[RyanM: thanks mikelorrey for picking out the obvious bias in the liberal media. If this were a Bush administration official and the House were run by Dems, the clip would have led the Nightly News, even the “perky” one would have howled in laughter at the bureaucrat squirming under Henry Waxman’s brilliant cross-examination.]
dr says:
April 17, 2011 at 3:13 am
“This is how you spin things. An “indirect” analysis on jobs includes costs and how they propagate to the industries impacted. Clearly the EPA knows and has a good handle on what costs it creates. To ask what kind of explicit job impact that has, would require an honest answer from the employers in industry, which you will never get, because it impacts their wallet. The cost propagates clearly and impacts jobs. This is a very complex issue, because we all know the upper echelon may fire lower people first and finally in a hysteresis collapse itself. … This is probably too complicated, just as the answer, yes, we did do a cost analysis (because we had access to those data) but not a direct analysis on jobs (because we would be guessing).”
I must disagree (civilly) with the dr. In my dealings with the tsunami of recent EPA regulations (I am in the utility business), they severely underestimate even the costs they do put into their analyses. They use outdated data and do not consider the impact of recent regulations on permitting even though they have issued those same regulations. Then they overestimate the health benefits by relying on some dubious studies.
This is part of the war on coal. Utilities all over country are looking at their fleets and figuring out which units that are currently producing power are to be shut down because it is too expensive or technically impossible to retrofit them. The power will be replaced with natural gas. The gas plants will run with no more than one quarter of the people that a coal plant does. There go your jobs.
Vogon.
Winning the House gave the Republicans committee chairmanship and the opportunity to call the bureaucrats to testify (what were there assumptions in their models…if any at all) for the record. This is just the beginning…
UNLEASH THE HOUNDS!!!
From Theo Goodwin on April 17, 2011 at 7:56 am:
Sure, I can believe that. I’ve worked in industrial situations and know high pressure is dangerous. It’s strange to work inches from hydraulic lines with pressure that could cut right through you, and realize you’re not even thinking about it. But those aren’t pressures I’d expect in a home.
Which brings up something curious with that 1 trillion gallons/yr number. From the Save Water Today site:
Go through every home, giving the plumbing a through looking-over while installing these water-efficient things, and you’d only save 1/500th of the amount presumably lost? Thus it seems the majority of the loss is outside the house. To comply with a new regulation at a house in town with municipal water, the old galvanized steel pipe going out to the street was replaced. When uncovered, yep it had a slow leak. It wouldn’t be detected by the water meter inside the house. Also, that pipe was right next to another rusted pipe. Apparently the replaced one was a replacement for that original pipe, done at least two decades ago. Well, if that house has gone through two street supply lines, in what condition is the water main running under the street?
Water is disappearing, pumped into municipal systems. Rather than address the major issue of aging water mains that may have been buried more than a century ago, and the lines going into the house that might not be the property owner’s responsibility, the recommendation is made for thousands of dollars to be spent at each location to save 1/500th of what’s estimated to be lost. Yup, sounds like something the EPA would be involved in.
The distinction should be made between shortages which in theory are chronic statewide conditions, and emergencies which seemingly pop up at least several times a year in every state, somewhere in that state. “Serious water shortages” in 36 states in less than two years? Seems highly unlikely given all the winter precipitation that built up snow packs, refilled reservoirs, and recharged aquifers, and if this spring is any indication then we’ll get plenty more. But we could get a year of drought that’ll wipe those increases out by the 2013 deadline. Of course that’d be weather, not climate.
Although, as I’ve said before, as the (C)AGW proponents define things, weather is not climate unless weather is climate change. ☺
What would it take to get a politician to say, You’re fired!?”
“What would it take to get a politician to say, ‘You’re fired!?’ ”
The bureaucrat would have to be a Republican.
Rep. Cory Gardner: Mr. Stanislaus, in order to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that you are re-releasing in to this chamber I ask that you confine your answers to simply yes or no, or better yet just nod for yes and shake for no.
Rep. Cory Gardner: When doing the impact assessment did you consider any jobs other then your own?
Rep. Cory Gardner: Is that a Yes or a No?. Joe what do you think, is that a nod or a shake?
Rep. Joe Barton: Umm, Cory, I’m no doctor but that sure looks like spastic convulsions.
Rep. Cory Gardner: Medic!!
I am new here, so just out of curiosity: is WUWT purely about climate issues, or is it also a forum for supporting right wing politics?
[RyanM: you’ll find that many of the readers and purveyors on WUWT span the entire political spectrum. I’m glad you have made the critical connection of defunding EPA being mainly a right wing idea. If that’s what you wish to describe those that oppose the imposition of liberal climate policy, then so be it. Also, the blog police are like air traffic controllers, asleep when “opinions” are being purveyed. Please make a distinction.]
Note: this was the comment of the day (April 17): very snarky and witty 🙂
evanmjones says:
April 17, 2011 at 7:26 am (Edit)
Socialist Youth Climate Conference
Redistribution of warmth?
Why am I not surprised that at no point in this story do you actually identify the legislation the EPA is proposing? Seems pretty sensationalist to post this video of Rep Gardner grilling this EPA bureaucrat on a beautiful “You didn’t directly analyze the impact on jobs” sound byte without actually referencing the rule the EPA is proposing. I love that Gardner’s supporters see this as him tearing the EPA a new one, but I watch this video and just laugh because all the Rep from Colorado is doing is completely ignoring the EPA bureaucrat so he can so the word job for the 15th time.
I don’t think this guy could have made this one more clear. They did an analysis on the impact of the proposed legislation, however flawed some of the other commentators seem to think it was, and that analysis included direct economic impact but didn’t look at jobs directly, just overall direct economic impact. Gardner seems very confused by this distinction, so much that he has to keep asking the same question, over and over.
Either Gardner is an idiot and doesn’t understand what a direct economic impact study is, or he just wanted to say “jobs” a few more times. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt so my vote is for the latter.
Todd D vents on April 18, 2011 at 2:25 am (bold added):
From the quoted Daily Caller section (bold added):
From Ryan Maue’s text before the video:
Todd D opines:
Are your comprehension skills specifically attuned to bureaucrat-speak?
Why am I not surprised that at no point in this story do you actually identify the legislation the EPA is proposing?
Bad reading skills ?
It’s written for those who can read .
The issue was the EPA’s project for regulating the coal ash .
And they clearly are not interested in how many jobs it will destroy which is basically the point .
If it was an irresponsible bureaucrat, he’d have been fired on the spot in any serious business. Such an amount of incompetence and arrogance doesn’t deserve tax payer’s money.
Oh my goodness. What a nightmare to be caught out like that.
Todd D; There is definitely an idiot hidden somewhere in your comment but alas it is not Rep. Gardner. That leaves two people left and I will allow you to choose which one it is.