The Cost of Lisa Jackson

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576453893688343246.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

***************

"A strategy that doesn't take into account resources is doomed to failure." (John C. Maxwell)

***************

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board sometimes comes up with a nice, concise approach to federal government agencies running amok. Today's article on the "EPA" does a wonderful job of emphasizing "JOBS." What a concept! Is it possible that the impact of a rule change on employment could begin to be a consideration now? The Train Act is evidently a beginning to the definition of real "costs" of rule changes or implementations.

The status quo is that the EPA can define almost anything as a benefit. But, as the WSJ points out about new EPA rules, "... the EPA rarely considers more tangible economic consequences, like its effects on employment, the price and reliability of energy, or the competitiveness of U.S. companies."

What I like about the WSJ perspective is this: if we have to shut some coal fired power plants down in Texas in the near future because of new EPA rules, and this causes unemployment, power interruptions and higher prices, maybe some of that expense can be included in the kinds of considerations present in the Train Act. Those are real costs. What is needed is some consideration on, for example, retraining those who maybe laid off (is that an expense or a cost that should be considered?). Does the pace of rule enforcement correlate with the pace of unemployment and the possibility of re-employment?

I'll close with the ending quote from the article: "In a recent Joan of Arc interview with the New York Times, Ms. Jackson said that 'The only thing worse than no EPA is an EPA that exists and doesn't do its job.' Try that one on people who don't have a job because of Ms. Jackson's grandiose views."