de·reg·u·la·tion
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dē-ˌre-gyə-ˈlā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1963
: the act or process of removing restrictions and regulations
Many journalists claim that the U.S. economy since the late 1970s has been very free, with little regulation; that this absence of regulation has caused markets to fail; that there was a consensus in favor of little regulation; and that, now, this consensus is fading. On all these counts, the reports are false. Specifically, the U.S. economy has not been free since before the New Deal of the 1930s. Even before the 1930s, the U.S. economy was "mixed"—that is, a combination of economic freedom and government regulation—and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal altered the "mix" substantially toward regulation and away from freedom. The deregulation of the late 1970s and 1980s reversed some of the regulations that came with the New Deal and some that preceded it, but the net amount of regulation has been much higher in the alleged era of deregulation than it was during the post... --David R. Henderson
But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. --George Orwell
Jason proves here and here, that I lack the pragmatic competence to discuss bureaucratic terms. I confused the context of deregulation leaving Jason to point out for the second time that i'm dishonest.
I used regulation in a common (mis)usage of the word--or at least common when i'm speaking to people in my day to day life--be they conservatives, liberals, or Liberals--rather than within government bureaucracy.
Regulatory Agency Spending...
Jason correctly points out that Regulatory Agency spending has dramatically gone up during Bush's tenure.
A 2008 study by the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found in their annual regulatory spending analysis that Homeland Security spending increased regulatory activities
Driven largely by homeland security activities, staffing levels in 2008 are 43 percent larger than they were in 2000. The budget calls for expenditures that are 51.8 percent higher than in 2000 -- an increase in real spending on regulatory activities of $13.2 billion between 2000 and 2008, the study finds...
...In 2008, the DHS is slated to receive 45.5% of the regulators budget, or more than $21 billion. And DHS will employ more than half of the federal regulatory workforce, with 133,059 employees - up 5.3% from 2007. This is a trend that continues from the 2006 edition of this report and is mainly attributable to growth in agencies responsible for immigration, customs and border protection.
"While several agencies within the Department of Homeland Security are slated for budget cuts in 2008, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement each face large increases in personnel," notes Warren.
Needless to say that when one removes 9/11 from the equation those numbers are bound to fall more closely in line with past--which is an unknown, but seems reasonable none the less.
Yet as David R. Henderson at the Cato institute notes:
One could argue that we need to distinguish here between different kinds of regulation. Often people refer to "economic regulation" when they mean restrictions on whether new firms can enter businesses or that require firms to get government permission before setting their prices. If this is what they mean, then there is a case to be made that, in substantial sectors of the economy, there is less government regulation now than before the late 1970s. There has been substantial deregulation at the federal level of airlines, trucking, railroads, oil, and natural gas, to name five large sectors
This was the argument I was trying to make--my bad.
A few examples of such...
From the OECD
Deregulation is a subset of regulatory reform and refers to complete or partial elimination of regulation in a sector to improve economic performance.
An Assault on Public Protections: Regulatory Policy News in 2008
OMB also continued to alter the substance of individual agency rules. In most cases, OMB's interference weakened requirements proposed at the agency level. For example:
In March, President Bush himself stepped in to force EPA to abandon its plan to set a seasonal standard for ozone exposure tailored especially to the needs of plant life. OMB challenged the scientific basis for EPA's decision and encouraged the agency to consider the economic impact of the new standard, even though the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from weighing costs in setting air standards. After EPA resisted the pressure, Bush was brought in to arbitrate the dispute and sided with OMB.
In October, EPA tightened the national public health standard for airborne lead, drawing rare praise from clean air advocates. However, shortcomings in the network for monitoring lead pollution persist. EPA was prepared to require installation of new monitors near facilities emitting 1,000 pounds or more of lead pollution. But an e-mail exchange between EPA and OMB less than 48 hours before the final rule was announced shows that OMB pressured EPA to raise the threshold to 2,000 pounds. The change means state and local officials will not be required to place new pollution monitors near at least 124 facilities that emit lead.
The White House also watered down a rule expanding protections for the endangered North Atlantic right whale. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) initially proposed extending the protection area in which the new rule would be enforced to 30 nautical miles off shore. When NOAA announced the final rule in October — after a White House review that lasted 573 days — the protection zone had shrunk to only 20 nautical miles.
where...
The pace only accelerated in December. Many of the rules target the environment. Rules finalized in the first half of December would:
*Make it legal for mining companies to dump into rivers and streams the waste generated from mountaintop mining
*Exempt farms from reporting air pollution generated from animal waste
Lift the 25-year-old-ban on carrying loaded weapons in national parks
*Remove the requirement for scientific consultation under the Endangered Species Act (as discussed above) and eliminate climate change as a factor in decisions about species protection
OMB directed its most strident opposition toward new regulations that would have addressed climate change. The White House completely dismantled the efforts of EPA staff to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
A House investigation into EPA's 2007 decision to prohibit California from adopting its own tailpipe emissions controls showed the White House may have played a role in denying the state's climate change policy. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson had been willing to grant California's request but changed his mind after a meeting with White House officials, according to the House report released in May 2008. The denial precludes as many as 19 other states from adopting similar emissions reduction programs.
The White House also blocked federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After developing a regulatory roadmap to reduce both vehicle and stationary source emissions, White House officials prohibited EPA from releasing its plans to the public.
In response to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision, EPA began to develop documents showing that climate change poses a danger to the public and a regulatory plan for addressing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But when EPA sent the material to OMB for review, OMB refused to open the e-mail. OMB officials feared the documents would make a compelling case for greenhouse gas regulation.
As well as a recent article in Mother Jones
Deregulation has been the mantra on both sides of the aisle since the late 1960s. Long gone are Democrats like Michigan's Phil Hart who, as chair of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, held hearings on the concentration of economic power in the United States, and proposed expanded government regulation of everything from the oil and auto industries to pharmaceuticals to professional sports. Hart believed that because wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of such a small number of corporations, the market economy had become no more than a facade. In this context, what would bring about lower prices and greater productivity and innovation was more government intervention and regulation, not less.it also notes that
Democrats from Carter to Clinton helped roll back the government's regulatory power
The point is
A common theme is shifting regulation of industry from government to the industries themselves, essentially promoting self-regulation. One rule transfers assessment of the impact of ocean-fishing away from federal inspectors to advisory groups linked to the fishing industry. Another allows factory farms to self-regulate disposal of pollutant run-off.
The concept I was emphasizing was Special Interests v. Public Interest. In this sense the Bush record is quite clear.
As Barry Ritholtz notes
When we discuss “Regulations,” we are talking about regulating human behavior. And that behavior can range from following misplaced incentives to falsifying accounting data to overtly legal but destructive actions — like putting people into loans they knew (or reasonably should have known) were likely to default.
My willful perversion of truth in order to deceive and cheat has been exposed. I shall work to address this character flaw that provides me education and entertainment.
-----------
Some interesting finds along the way:
OMB Watch
Breaking the banks - Bill Clinton's economic policies
Regulatory Agency Spending Reaches New Height: An Analysis of the U.S. Budget for
Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 --2009 Annual Report
No comments:
Post a Comment