August 2011 Archives

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Obama have said that when the Senate returns to Washington in September they want to focus on creating clean-energy jobs. The pronouncement comes as a major new Brookings Institution report finds that new "clean-tech" segments of the economy are producing "explosive job gains" - now employing several hundred thousand workers -- and are growing much faster than the economy as a whole.

What are Washington's biggest obstacles in moving the country toward a green economy?
What policies (such as tax incentives for electric vehicles or the creation of a clean-energy development bank) would help create jobs while also increasing clean-energy usage?
Is it possible for Washington to create green jobs in the current budget-cutting environment?
Or should the federal government step aside and let the free market determine the future of clean-energy jobs?

28 responses: Greg Henderson, Donna Harman, William O'Keefe, Paul Sullivan, Teryn Norris, Cal Dooley, Olga Belogolova, Peter Rothstein, Olga Belogolova, Richard L. Kauffman, Ron Binz, Arun Majumdar, Steve Bolze, Jesse Jenkins, Allen Schaeffer, Bill Ritter Jr., Bill Meadows, Matthew Stepp, Rhone Resch, Josh Freed, Brent Erickson, Lewis Milford, Andrew Wheeler, Tom Buis, Daniel Esty, Carl Pope, Amy Harder, Mark Muro

Editor's note: This week former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., is providing the question. She is now national chair of the Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations group.

How can President Obama and Congress balance new regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency with a still-weak economy?

This month, EPA is expected to announce a new standard for ground-level ozone (smog) two years before its regular five-year review. Critics of the proposed revision note that many counties are still working to comply with the current standard issued in 2008 and also say the new rule will yield a relatively small benefit when compared to the $19 billion to $90 billion that the rule is expected to cost the economy by EPA's own estimates. Supporters of the revision, meanwhile, are urging the administration forward under the banner of public health.

With such high stakes, the proposed ozone standard has garnered a great deal of attention over the past several months. But there are many other pending federal regulations (over 4,200) in the pipeline, and each deserves a similar degree of scrutiny to ensure these rules aren't doing more harm than good.

While some federal regulations are important, it costs the U.S. economy a staggering $1.75 trillion a year to comply with them, according to a report commissioned by the Small Business Administration last September. Small businesses bear the brunt of these compliance costs, spending an average $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent more than larger firms pay. Compliance with environmental regulations costs small firms 364 percent more than larger businesses, and tax compliance costs 206 percent more.

While the debate surrounding the debt ceiling has subsided, the uncertainty that plagues the American economy has not. The federal government continues to be the source of much of the very uncertainty that haunts entrepreneurs, small businesspeople, state and local governments, and the economy in general.

In a struggling economy, wouldn't the American people be better served with regulators enforcing regulations currently on the books instead of initiating a flood of costly new rules and requirements? How can Congress and the administration sensibly balance an effective regulatory structure with the urgent need to create and maintain jobs and help our nation's economy get back on stable ground?

21 responses: Donna Harman, Blanche Lincoln, Richard Revesz, Peter Iwanowicz, William O'Keefe, Carl Pope, Amy Harder, Blanche Lincoln, Amy Harder, Jack Gerard, Gene Karpinski, Peter Lehner, Brent Erickson, Amy Harder, Carl Pope, Lance Brown, Phil Kerpen, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Kathleen Sgamma, Margo Thorning, William O'Keefe

Do President Obama's vehicle fuel-economy standards strike the right balance?

Last week, the White House announced a deal with the nation's automakers to ramp up the standards 65 percent by 2025, from the current 35.5 miles per gallon to 54.5 mpg. The proposal calls for a 5 percent average annual increase in fuel economy for cars and a 3.5 percent annual increase for light trucks through 2021. After 2021, both cars and trucks would face a 5 percent annual increase. The administration would also review the standards in 2018 and adjust them if they're too high or low.

Are the standards realistic? Will they do enough to slash oil consumption and climate-change pollution, key tenets of Obama's energy policy? What other policies should the administration and Congress develop to complement these standards?

13 responses: Kateri Callahan, Carl Pope, Brent Erickson, Phyllis Cuttino, Richard Revesz, Tom Stricker, Mark Cooper, Mindy Lubber, Allen Schaeffer, Robbie Diamond, Amy Harder, Bill Snape, William O'Keefe