Obama orders further deregulation of US economy

[Hannah Bell]

On Tuesday, President Obama issued an executive order requiring a review of all existing government regulations. The order was accompanied by an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal, in which Obama made clear his intention to water down or remove regulations on behalf of the most powerful financial and corporate interests.

The executive order, among other things, requires that each federal agency “adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.”

Under the system of so-called “cost-benefit analysis” any improvements in workplace, environmental or public health conditions must be weighed against the financial costs to big business.

Under the order, regulators should “specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt,” and should furthermore “identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior.”

In other words, corporations should not be compelled to abide by health, safety and environmental standards, but only encouraged to meet non-binding “performance objectives,” and be paid for it to boot.

(Hannah: This approach is similar to HAACP for food -- instituted I think around the 80s -- self-regulation, & a massive deception & failure, IMO.)

Finally, regulations should be based upon “open exchange” with “affected stakeholders in the private sector” (i.e., banks and corporations), and prior to rule implementation regulators should “seek the views of those who are likely to be affected.”

Agencies will also be required to find “regulatory approaches that reduce burdens,” a task they will no doubt accomplish with the assistance of corporate lobbyists.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/obam-j19.shtml

[somone]

1. Shocking indeed

[Hardrada]

2. Even Nixon wasn't this much of a collaborator.

[montanacowboy]

3. He is a one man wrecking crew

destroying what is left of the democratic party

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. +100000!

[emilyg]

27. +++++

[rko_24550]

35. [phone]

[DCKit]

44. Who knew WE would be the ones to elect the all-powerful President.

Everything is instigated by Obama, everything is Obama's fault.

There is no House, there is no Senate. Obama rules the world and makes the decisions for everyone.

No wonder Michelle is always smiling. He is God.

[Smashcut]

54. This is an executive order.

Congress has nothing to do with it.

[sabrina 1]

5. He's working hard for the Republican vote ~

He wouldn't be the first Democrat to do that. Remember Lieberman?

He clearly does not like progressives and his team said they would be looking for 'new voters' to replace those on the left he expects to lose because of these kinds of decisions. I guess they meant republicans. He is gaining support from the right lately so who knows?

[kenny blankenship]

6. Reagan Lives.

[shireen]

7. Nth-dimensional chess?

:sarcasm:

[elleng]

8. Wrong OP, NOT FURTHER deregulation.

"reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs” is good, isn't it?

'Regulatory approaches that reduce burdens' have been the rule for ages.


IMO, Prez O went to WSJ as a 'sop.'

Check Eugene Robinon's POV, last night, Rachel or Keith.

[tyne]

11. I'd recommend

everyone read his total opinion article and try to find one thing they disagree with.

[emulatorloo]

13. Yes, WSWS does not take into account the quotes from Obama I supplied below

"This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth."

[Hannah Bell]

30. that quote is from an op-ed. the wsws quote is from the exec order itself.

b) This order is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.

As stated in that Executive Order and to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things:

(1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and

(5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/obamas-executive-order-and-memo-on-regulations/69711/


people can say whatever they like in op-eds; they're not legally binding, nor do they affect what the reviewers will actually do.

the wsws quoted the text of the order.

[WinkyDink]

33. It's the exact language used by REAGAN. EXACT. As I posted below.

[emulatorloo]

9. You forgot"This order requires <snip> that regulations protect our safety, health and environment"

Here are two quotes from Obama op-ed that affirm the committment to "rules and regulations necessary to protect the public against threats to our health and safety and to safeguard people and businesses from abuse."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698.html

But throughout our history, one of the reasons the free market has worked is that we have sought the proper balance. We have preserved freedom of commerce while applying those rules and regulations necessary to protect the public against threats to our health and safety and to safeguard people and businesses from abuse.

----

This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.

------

[Hannah Bell]

17. those benefits must be justified v. their costs. who's doing the review; that's what it will come

down to.

imo there are lots of public goods that can't be justified by "cost/benefit" -- esp. when a human life or human health is given an arbitrary dollarized value.

[emulatorloo]

18. Does the editorial you posted have this quote or not?

If not, why not?

[Hannah Bell]

19. it does. i even bolded it for you.

The executive order, among other things, requires that each federal agency “adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.”

[emulatorloo]

20. Sorry, no I was talking about the "regulations [must} protect our safety, health and environment"

language. Sorry for the confusion. I meant "This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth."

I just did a search for that phrase in the op-ed and can not find it.

I think the language was excluded from the op-ed because it does not support the premise of the op-ed.

Which is why I feel like the author is perhaps engaging in a some "cherry-picking"

[Hannah Bell]

25. I'm not sure which "author" you're referring to, but the quote in the OP I posted is from the

Executive Order, which I think has more legal force than the op-ed in the WSJ.

[villager]

10. of course, "cost benefit analysis" won't be applied to the war machine!

After all, a lowly elected rep -- even one in the Oval Office -- can't mess with their bosses!

[QC]

12. Anybody else remember Dan Quayle and his Competitiveness Council?

I guess all that was old really is new again.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emulatorloo]

16. . . .

This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth.

It is not all black and white. I know it is fashionable to "cherry pick" at DU. OP ignores that section of the Executive Order.

[Skittles]

26. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Starry Messenger]

15. This doesn't even make sense from a liberal standpoint.

It's one thing to know intellectually that the neolibs are part of an ongoing process of deregulating everything under the sun, but seeing it happen in real time? Really scary.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

22. Thanks, I'm good.

I trust the wsws more than wsj.

[emulatorloo]

24. It is a piece by Obama, not WSJ editors. WSWS apprears to be misrepresenting Obama's position

by selectively ignoring some part of it.

[Hannah Bell]

31. As I've repeatedly told you, they quoted from the actual Executive Order.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/obamas-executive-order-and-memo-on-regulations/69711/


Which is one of the merits of wsws; they look beyond the happy op-ed's to the actual legislation.

[Starry Messenger]

34. Plus anyone with sense would be critical of

the placement of even the OP-ed into a cheerleader for capital like the WSJ. With a cartoon accompanying it like this one:



Sure, move along, nothing to see here. lol.

[emulatorloo]

39. Wall Street Journal placement covered here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=439&topic_id=231206&mesg_id=231261

(Although somewhat cryptically - requires digging out some clips from Countdown and/or Rachel Maddow)

[emulatorloo]

37. I'm replying to Starry Messenger's post.

You aren't involved in this one.

At some point I will get a full copy of the Executive Order and read it.

Maybe you can do the same and we can discuss it without spin

As to the Op-ED, your OP characterizes it as "an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal, in which Obama made clear his intention to water down or remove regulations on behalf of the most powerful financial and corporate interests." That is pretty heavy duty spin of the OP-ED.

[Hannah Bell]

40. I linked you to the full text of the EO. So "sometime" can be now.

here's the link to the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=231206&mesg_id=231607

[emulatorloo]

41. Sorry did not see that. Will look for where you linked it

It won't be now because I will need to read through it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/obamas-executive-order-and-memo-on-regulations/69711

A quick skim - I see nothing in the executive order that justifies a suggestion that this review is going to result in wholesale de-regulation.

In addition there are several referenences to the needs "protect] public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation."

[Hannah Bell]

42. here, again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=231206&mesg_id=231607

here's the direct wh link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/18/improving-regulation-and-regulatory-review-executive-order

it's short. you don't need to spend a lot of time.

it probably took more time to read the op ed.

[emulatorloo]

45. Got it, read it, edited in my "skimming" observations above. THNKS n/t

[Hannah Bell]

46. his actual legally binding words are in the executive order the wsws quoted from:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/18/improving-regulation-and-regulatory-review-executive-order

tell me if you find anything misquoted.

furthermore, as another poster noted, some of the language mirrors a reagan-era directive.

[bluestate10]

49. Your claim flies in the face of actions taken during the first 2 years

of the Obama administration. I will take a wait and see posture.

[Hannah Bell]

50. *i* made no claim other than the claim that wsws quoted the EO.

[bluestate10]

51. I will wait to read the EO. The WSJ is Murdock owned.

Sorry, I do not trust anything that Murdock owns.

[Hannah Bell]

52. murdoch doesn't own wsws. & i linked you to the White House page with the EO:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=231206&mesg_id=231818

so why wait? read it now & tell me if wsws misquoted.

[Poboy]

23. Recommend

[defendandprotect]

28. Any deregulation of capitalism is disastrous -- unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime...!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

32. "R-B Analysis" was touted in the 80's by REPUBLICANS. How about REAGAN: Executive Order 12291:

http://www.chrisdemuth.com/id52.html

"Executive Order 12291 provides in section 2 that, “to the extent permitted by law,

(a) Administrative decisions shall be based on adequate information concerning the need for and consequences of proposed government action;

(b) Regulatory action shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh the potential costs to society;"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://books.google.com/books?id=VlBUObdxpWYC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=cost-benefit+analysis+don+ritter&source=bl&ots=Da8l6SE6ru&sig=ijkyzelZDd16_104gTdskNHxZ4A&hl=en&ei=FYA3TZLnIcP_lge7_YzQBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cost-benefit%20analysis%20don%20ritter&f=false

[Hannah Bell]

43. wow. it is the same language. Obama's EO refers to a Clinton-era one:

(b) This order is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.

That must have been a carry-over from reagan too.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/18/improving-regulation-and-regulatory-review-executive-order

[ProSense]

36. Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System

Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System

If the FDA deems saccharin safe enough for coffee, then the EPA should not treat it as hazardous waste.

By BARACK OBAMA

For two centuries, America's free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. That vibrant entrepreneurialism is the key to our continued global leadership and the success of our people.

But throughout our history, one of the reasons the free market has worked is that we have sought the proper balance. We have preserved freedom of commerce while applying those rules and regulations necessary to protect the public against threats to our health and safety and to safeguard people and businesses from abuse.

From child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to our most recent strictures against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, we have, from time to time, embraced common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.

Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.

more

This President is building a solid pro-regulation record.

Obama signs bill putting tobacco products under FDA oversight

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act

Banning antibiotics in livestock production

Food Safety bill

Appointed Elizabeth Warren to establish the consumer bureau

Elizabeth Warren Recruits Dodd-Frank Enforcers From 50 States

Enacted shareholder rules on executive pay

Fed's massive data release offers new insight into financial crisis

Panel Begins to Set Rules to Govern Financial System (Volcker Rule)

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Saccharin as the deregulator's urban legend.

The listing had no significant practical implications for anyone in industry, and the delisting was so obscure that almost no one knew about it until it came up in the president’s op-ed. If people threw out saccharin products for any reason, government officials did not come swooping down to prosecute them for violating hazardous waste laws. If you didn't hear about the rush to hire more workers in late 2010 after the saccharin burden was lifted, that's because there wasn't one. Saccharin remained one of only a handful of examples where a chemical, previously thought dangerous, was later deemed not dangerous. In fact, this problem was so negligible that although John Graham, George W. Bush's regulatory czar, used it as an example of regulation run amok, even he did not think the burden on business was great enough to bother doing anything about its presence on the EPA lists.

Moral of the story: Deregulators have their urban legends, but telling them over and over does not make them so.

http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=9ADFFF27-E36F-6EB8-64557C8694A19439

[ProSense]

48. Good point

"The listing had no significant practical implications for anyone in industry, and the delisting was so obscure that almost no one knew about it until it came up in the president’s op-ed. If people threw out saccharin products for any reason, government officials did not come swooping down to prosecute them for violating hazardous waste laws."

Given that this was such a useless entry, it should have been eliminated. There are likely other irrelevant rules that small business owners are adhering to, especially involving paper work, that no one will ever rush in to prosecute them for.

Given that the President has spent the last two years introducing new regulations, and has indicated that he plans to continue doing so, I don't see a problem.

[bvar22]

38. YAY!!!!

We already did this.
It was called The Gilded Age.
It was GREAT if you were in the top 1%.

THAT is what this country needs to get back on the right track!!!
....More Gatsbys and useless mega-RICH people!
The TRUE American Dream!

If you have any doubt about who the Democratic Party leadership is working for,
you aren't paying attention.

[Catherina]

53. Obama Pulls a Clinton YAY! USA! USA!

Obama Pulls a Clinton
by Robert Scheer

Here we go again. When Bill Clinton suffered an electoral reversal after his first two years in office, he abruptly embraced the corporate money guys who had financed his congressional opposition in an effort to purchase a second term. On Tuesday in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece, Barack Obama veered sharply down that same course, trumpeting his executive order " ... to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. ..."
He employed the same "creating a 21st-century regulatory system" rationalization used by Clinton when he signed off on the sweeping deregulation legislation that unleashed the Wall Street greed that ended up being the biggest job-killer since the Great Depression. "Over the (past) seven years, we have tried to modernize the economy," Clinton enthused as he signed the Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed key New Deal legislation, adding, "And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority." Modernizing was the propaganda constant, as in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that Clinton signed, thus shielding financial derivatives from any government regulation.

That deregulation, as Obama concedes in his WSJ column, led to "a lack of proper oversight and transparency (that) nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale depression." But Obama now promises that his deregulation efforts will be more sensibly targeted and will "bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislatures of both parties and influence of special interests in Washington over decades."

When he wrote that he intends to accomplish this revamp "with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens," did he have in mind his two new key White House advisers who were the most effective advocates for those special interests? Tom Donilon, Obama's national security adviser, was the Washington lobbyist for the housing behemoth Fannie Mae, which will cost taxpayers $700 billion because of its marketing of toxic derivatives. Obama's new Chief of Staff William Daley was the lead Washington representative for a similarly afflicted JPMorgan Chase. These are the folks, along with many other Wall Street alums in this administration, who will oversee the latest update of already weakened regulations.

...

... As the WSJ reported:

“On Feb. 7, Mr. Obama will visit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a chief opponent to his administration’s regulatory approach—for a discussion on how the White House can work with the group to create jobs. The efforts are designed to give companies more confidence in the president’s stewardship of the economy, and bolster his re-election prospects among a wealthy constituency not traditionally allied with Democrats.”

A constituency that Daley, Obama’s new chief of staff, can faithfully represent, having received $5 million a year from JPMorgan Chase. And so ends the season of hope for the less wealthy constituency traditionally allied with Democrats.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obama_pulls_a_clinton_20110118/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. How about he starts by "regulating" campaign contributions from the corporations?