About Rich Robinson

Posts by Rich Robinson:

New report from Demos, U.S. PIRG highlights the damage done by regulatory “reform”

, , , , , ,

The people who bring you regulatory “reform” (Big Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their cheerleaders in Congress) are hard at work trying to slow down and even halt regulatory safeguards. Now, a new report by Demos and the U.S. PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) reveals that Americans’ lives, health and livelihoods would be put at risk if these so-called “reform” proposals were to become law.

The first in a series of state reports focus on Massachusetts, Ohio and Pennsylvania (with others coming soon), on how their residents would be harmed by each year of delay in the creation of three upcoming proposed bills: The “Regulations from the Executive in Need Of Scrutiny (REINS) Act”, The “Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA),” and The “Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act (RFIA).”

According to the reports, thousands of Americans are at risk:

  • In Pennsylvania alone, for each year the government fails to update the restriction on levels of toxic soot in the air the state will face 3,890 preventable deaths and 84,539 preventable asthma attacks among children.
  • In Ohio, delaying the Affordable Care Act’s ban on health insurance companies discriminating against patients with pre- existing conditions for one year will put 65,060 newly diagnosed cancer patients at risk of being denied health insurance.
  • Allowing food processors to delay one year before using new standards from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for safe handling of produce will cause approximately 200,000 local cases of foodborne illness—more than the entire city of Worcester. More

Regulatory Freeze Act does nothing for the unemployed, just makes the world more dangerous for everyone

, , , , ,

Last year, in the 175 days that the U.S. House of Representatives was in session, it passed more than 190 anti-regulatory bills. Not one of them created a new job. Unfortunately, those in Congress who favor profits over public safety are still at it.

Next up is H.R. 4078, the “Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012,” an absurd bill that calls for a halt on public protections until the unemployment rate reaches six percent. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up the bill on Tuesday, March 20.

Congress should be focusing attention on scandalously high unemployment, but it should be getting to the heart of the matter, not repeating tired falsehoods and reinforcing misleading assumptions about public protections. Let’s remember that regulation did not cause the jobs crisis, and it’s not a significant obstacle to job creation.

In reality, public protections strengthen the economy and make our country stronger, safer and more secure. Our nation has made advancements beyond the wildest dreams of our Founders, due largely to the standards put in place that protect everyone. More

On Capitol Hill, Public Citizen brings the heat of reality to a GOP freeze on regulatory safeguards

, , , , , ,

The U.S. House of Representatives refuses to let up on its quixotic mission to destroy public safeguards. Its latest incarnation is H.R. 4078, the “Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012,” a misguided bill that seeks to halt regulatory protections until the unemployment rate is equal or less than six percent.

photo by Derek Keats vis flickr

It was the topic of the hour at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, featuring two professors associated with the Hoover Institute, Allan Meltzler and John Taylor, who were there to bolster a weak argument that by “freezing” regulations, somehow all of our country’s jobs problems would magically disappear.

Fortunately, Public Citizen President Rob Weissman was there to speak on behalf of reality.

Weissman, who also serves as co-chair of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards,  reminded the subcommittee it was regulatory failures that helped create the current jobs crisis. He said a freeze on public protections not only would fail to create jobs, but would place the economy in serious jeopardy, particularly if newly created financial regulations were weakened or blocked. A little more on that in minute. More

The Economist strikes out in its attempt to rehash the corporate anti-regulation wish list

, , , , ,

After pouring through a recent edition of The Economist (“Over-regulated America” Feb. 18, 2010), readers might be tempted to look for an ad at the end that said “Paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.” It would have explained why the magazine decided to publish the same, old corporate wish list for rolling back our nation’s system of vital safeguards in the name of increased profits. Not being able to find such an ad, you have to wonder what exactly The Economist was thinking.

photo by Tom Clifton via flickr

The pushback has been loud and stinging. Rena Steinzor, a professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, and the president of the Center for Progressive Reform, penned a ravaging rebuttal to the magazine which is a must-read for anyone who is interested in protecting our environment, food, financial system, etc. She calls out the magazine for using a roundly-debunked study commissioned by the Small Business Administration (SBA), which was jury-rigged to fit its anti-regulation narrative.

You can almost feel The Economist’s pain: the jobless rate should be a lot higher than it is, if the premise about the costs of regulations is correct. Surely if the regulatory burden were actually 12 percent of GDP – that’s what the SBA numbers say, if you draw them out – things would be far worse than they are. Ideologically unable to consider the obvious alternative – that regulations don’t add $10,585 in costs per employee, The Economist, just, well, “wonders” aloud.

Here’s what The Economist would have found if they’d dug just a little bit: Fully 70 percent of the SBA estimate was actually based on a regression analysis using opinion polling data on perceived regulatory climate across countries (in a strange twist, a separate article in the same issue actually questions the study, briefly). Whole reports have been written on why that number is bogus. More

Another survey, no surprise: Small business owners do not consider regulations to be a major concern

, , , ,

We’ve seen several surveys on the subject, and today’s findings are not a surprise. In a report released by the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and the Small Business Majority, a vast majority of small business owners do not see regulations as a major concern. In fact by a wide margin, “weak customer demand” is most troubling to small businessmen.

courtesy Small Business Majority

This goes against all the rhetoric spewed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Big Business advocates and their supporters in Congress, all of whom have never allowed facts to get in the way of a convenient talking point. The truth is, the great zeal to roll back the standards and safeguards that protect us from health, safety, environmental and financial disaster is not to help small businesses to create jobs, but to give wealthy corporate interests a free hand to skirt rules in pursuit of larger profits. Jobs for us regular folks, much less our health and well being, is really not part of their equation.

Here’s a look into the numbers from the Small Business Majority: More

Load More