NEW YORK -- Not content with having crafted a recovery plan that helped banks and financial services firms recover far more nicely than other folks, President Obama has reached out to the rest of the business community with a plan for all federal agencies to reexamine their regulations, the Washington Post reported.
Red tape stinks, of course. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of New Orleans citizens who had to jump, dance, and pirouette through federally-mandated hoops to even hope to qualify for compensation for the damage and destruction caused by the 2005 failure of the federal "hurricane protection system." And any federal agency, like any other organization, can benefit from a brisk and clear-headed review of its policies and regulations, clearing out the outdated and the unnecessary.
Buried in the Post story on this initiative, however, are these words that should set off warning bells:
Agencies "must consider costs and benefits and choose the least burdensome path."
This sounds so reasonable, so -- to use the current cliche, common sense -- that it might seem unobjectionable. Balance costs and benefits. It's objective. Almost, pardon the expression, scientific.
Unless you've had some experience with one federal agency that has long used "benefit-cost ratio" as a supposed guide to decision-making: the US Army Corps of Engineers. Take one example -- the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO), which the Corps built (over local and environmental objections in the 1950s), and which a federal judge has ruled (in a landmark case) was responsible for much of the 2005 flooding on the eastern side of New Orleans and all of St. Bernard Parish.
As outlined in the book Catastrophe in the Making by, among other authors, the late William Freudenberg, the Corps' practice in this case, as in many others, is to exaggerate, sometimes wildly, the supposed future economic benefits of a construction project. At other times, as when the Corps opposes the local community's preference for the so-called Option 2 plan for permanent improvements on the outfall canals whose walls failed catastrophically in 2005, the Corps is believed to exaggerate the costs of a project it doesn't want to build.
And, as documented in The Big Uneasy, the Corps is also known to claim that emergency conditions prevented it from conducting benefit-cost analyses when, in fact, a Corps whistleblower pointed to documented evidence that precisely such an analysis existed.
The Corps may be unique among federal agencies in its willingness and ability to, let's be gentle, massage the benefit-cost analysis process. Or it may be typical. But any such analysis of regulations, especially when it concludes that safety regulations pose excessive burdens on businesses, should be taken with at least the minimum daily requirement of sodium chloride.
Follow Harry Shearer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/theharryshearer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p-UNk2kn-c&feature=related
At about 2minutes 30 sec. he starts talking about privatizing profits while socializing costs via hidden and direct subsidies for these corporations. Later on he talks about specifics on how we can market-ize alternative energy.
This talk is worth listening to all the way through, in my opinion. Note---For those of you who haven't heard Kennedy speak, he struggles with "spasmodic dysphonia", a condition affecting the vocal chords. Despite his disability he is probably one of the most active and dynamic public speakers in America today.
True cost-benefit ratios factor in not just "this quarter" or "next quarter" concerns, but long-term concerns like 10 years from now, or even 20 or 30 years. They also factor in previously externalized costs, like how a particular policy will affect the environment --- the air, water, wildlife--- that we all share ownership of.
I am not naiive enough to think any agency will do a "true cost benefit analysis" which includes previously externalized costs that WE citizens bear, in order for business shareholders and CEO's to rake in more profit so they can buy yet another luxury villa in Tuscany. But that shouldn't stop non-government agencies from conducting one, and publicly presenting it!!!!!
Google up one of those RFKJr. YouTube presentations to see what I'm talking about. I'll try to find a particularly good one sometime today & post a link here.
Don't despair! Our President himself has flung open this door, and though he's likely to hang back and hide behind the furniture, no reason we can't walk through it!
And, of course, right you are. -sigh-
If all the externalized costs were included, and the long-term "hidden" benefits totalled, that is.
For instance, our nation's extensive highway system was built and is maintained at the expense of the environment and our public quality of life, because it forces every citizen to buy and maintain a personal vehicle---or two. Other successful industrialized Western nations have an extensive muli-modal, comprehensive public transit system, which allows citizens to get around very well without a car to buy, service, and store. Citizens save thousands of dollars annually...apiece.
And, public transit systems are far easier on the environment, in extemely calculable ways.
I'd be willing to BET that the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, and probably Riverkeepers and Bobby Kennedy, Jr. have a bunch of these "true cost-benefit" ratios already done and in their hip pockets, waiting to be asked for them.
Make those calls today, Fed Ags!!!!!!!
Unfortunately for the economy, the State has no way of knowing or even caring what regulations need to be removed. It hasn't nearly enough knowledge to determine effective "cost:benefit ratios." It has no way of calculating the unseen effects of its programs.
Political interest motivate the State, not profits. The State will almost always be willing to add new regulations so that their visible effects can be trumpeted loudly. It takes a truly awful policy for the public to take notice and finally correct the mistake.
What's happened?
I'm embarrassed to say I confused you w/ someone else.(I'm cringing in embarrassment, now.)
I sincerely apologize. You are absolutely correct, I have heard your criticisms of Obama's policies.
I'm rather pleased, however, that you replied! Kinda cool! thanks.
The army corp is a politically influenced organization funded in part by ear marks. The citizens of New Orleans demanded jobs so their representatives used the power of the purse and funded the corp to provide jobs no matter what impact it had on the environment.
New Orleans had major problems long before a hurricane. Politically it is hard to win votes by ear marking money to rebuild levees and dams. You win votes by providing welfare and jobs. What sounds better several billion dollars to rebuild a dam or a federally funded project to drain a "swamp" to create 1500 jobs in the oil industry?
The answer of course is jobs. No one thought the city would get hit by a major hurricane (happens only sporadically) It is unfair to the thousands who died and the tens of thousands still hurt but that is the sad truth.
Blaming cost benefit analysis just shifts blame. Local politicians and federal representatives are responsible. There wasn't a Louisiana version of Russ Feingold. Too many people stuffing money in freezers.
Even if New Orleans had a "Feingold" they'd vote him/her out of office for not providing jobs by destroying the environment pre-Katrina.
If the cost of protecting the poorer lower lying 9th ward per benefit is greater in cost and lower in benefit per dollar compared to the greater benefit and lower cost of protecting the more elevated wealthier residential and business areas, the Obama Admin. has given permission his Government agencies to justify screwing anybody they decide to if they can show that the cost/benefit ratio is better for already benefited projects or areas than already lesser benefited areas or projects cost/benefit, as an investment of that department's time and money.
So the WH is giving a green light for the poorest and neediest projects and people to be thrown under their bus.
Stand aside Sarah let the body tossing competition begin.
Harry, I find this misconception to be pervasive not only across America, but here in Louisiana!!!!!
The big delineation in whether one believes the truth or this misconception, is whether one has ever lived in New Orleans. The truth we former New Orleanians know is that the Lower 9th is actually one of the sections of New Orleans with the highest elevations. Many of its structures only got a few inches to a couple feet of water and some didn't flood at all.
By comparison, some of the most wealthiest areas of N.O. were actually some of the worst flooded Lakeview, Lake Vista = TWELVE FEET of water, plenty with 5 to 8 feet, Broadmoor/Central City/City Park area, 5 to 8 feet.
The dichotomy in rebuild speed is directly proportionate to the wealth and status of the area's individual residents. Much of the re-build across the area has been done, at least initally with citizens' out-of-pocket resources. Some were later , usually partially reimbursed by government programs, and some not. These were people who could afford to wait, and still eat.
Also, property titles in the 9th were, are, and have been a mess. Rehabbing a house one doesn't own or even formally rent---but maybe shares non-succession ownership with 200 other heirs---is simply not legally possible.