Progressive Think Tank Not So Thrilled With Obama's Regulatory Chief
The L.A. Times had a nice preview on this today, but the Center for Progressive Reform has just come out with a comprehensive report casting doubt on the regulatory record of Cass Sunstein, the president's pick to head the office in charge of government regulatory efforts.
According to the CPR, Sunstein, a longtime friend of Obama's, has supported the use of "cost-benefit analysis" in evaluating proposed regulations -- a method that assigns monetary values to various risks in an attempt to determine the worthiness of a new rule.
To an extent, that position aligns Sunstein with John Graham, the corporate-funded, right-leaning head of George W. Bush's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Graham became notorious for assigning a greater hypothetical value to the lives of younger Americans than to those of senior citizens, a practice dubbed the "death discount."
It's unlikely that Sunstein's OIRA would bear much resemblance to Graham's, which was arguably an all-time low point for environmental and public health advocates. But anyone who's grumbled privately that the media has over-scrutinized Obama's choices should read the CPR report first.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Here's a nice round-up on the Sunstein choice.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2009/01/12/should-environmentalists-fear-cass-sunstein.aspx
Seems CBA forms a key part of his thinking on regulations, but is hardly the whole story. CBA is often a useful tool, and if it isn't viewed as infallible, can certainly help with Obama's pledge to make Government "work".
January 26, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - the problem under Bush wasn't that CBA was used, it was the method used to assign dollars to the costs (generally fairly straightforward), and the benefits (Bush's administration seems to have generally figured this as 0, or close to it) of any proposed regulation. As long as it's done in a more honest and comprehensive fashion, I don't see a problem with it.
January 26, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Jeebus give me patience! I read this thing this morning and was wondering how long it would take to end up here.
I am becoming heartily sick of self-appointed Defenders of the One True Faith who seekout and expose what they perceive as dangerous deviations from the "progressive" orthodoxy by feeding cartoonish reductionist versions of the fact to a credulous media.
God forbid that anyone engage, much less publish, in any kind of complex thought about complex public policy issues that deviate in any way from the established dogma of goodthinkful "Progressivism."
Yes, the guy dared to say that cost-benefit analysis can be useful in making regulatory decisions on how to allocate limited resources. Oh, horror of horrors. Bring me my smelling salts and then somebody call the NKVD and get this guy on the way to the Gulag. Yes, he dared question whether OSHA was Constitutional(before concluding it probably was). How dare he! We like OSHA therefore it is Constitutional. Period, end of story.
If regulatory and policy concepts that were abused by the Bush Administration are forever off limits to us because the Bush Administration abused them, we're not going to get a whole fuck of a lot done these next four year because there is no policy or regulatory idea that those people did not abuse.
And my problem isn't that the media is "over-scrutinizing" this guy. The problem is that, as usual, they're credulously regurgitating cartoonish reductionism from alarmed "Progressives" as fact because it fits nicely into their beloved "oh those silly, squabbling Democrats" frame.
January 26, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we're even then, because I'm getting sick and tired of the diehard Democratic apologists who keep making excuses for why the party won't produce anything better than moderate Republican policies when it's in power.
January 27, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second that, Steve.
And I am becoming heartily sick of self-appointed Defenders of the One True Leader who seek out ane expose what they perceive as dangerous deviations from complete support of Him Who Must Not Be Criticized by serving up straw-man, cartoonish caricatures of the reasoning of people who dare to hold differing opinions.
February 2, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course younger lives demand more of our attention and resources than do older lives. For example, if the government determined that for $1,000 it could enact either 1) an air pollution regulation that would enable a 78-year old to live an additional 7 months, or 2) a traffic safety regulation that would prevent the traffic-related death of a 3-year old, which should it choose?
Duh...
Methinks we liberals have grown too accustomed to not governing. There are way tougher choices than this in front of us. Time to get real.
January 26, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If both would save lives, or thought of another way, if failure to act would be sure to cost a life, they should enact both. $1000 is pretty cheap.
But if the air-pollution regulation was guaranteed to extend the 78yo life by a whole 7 months, wouldn't that same air-pollution damage not only the developing lungs of that three year old (who may or may NOT die in traffic, but will certainly breathe) but also the lungs of all other three year olds? And over a lifetime wouldn't that add up to many many more years lost than just the 78 year old?
Please. Leave governing to someone else.
January 26, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick! Really old people and the terminally ill into the life rafts first!
And you have the temerity to call me jejune.
January 26, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone really wants to know what Sunstein thinks about issues with which he will likely deal, you could always read his recent book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.
http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/0300122233
January 26, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sort of thing annoys me to no end. Particularly this hangup people have with assigning dollar values to lives. If we didn't do that in some way (unconscious or not) we couldn't have civilization, period. No economically important things would have ever been done, because they always involve some risk of injury or death to someone. So you have to do it. That as a given, it makes sense to do it in the best and most accurate way possible, which is what a CBA is supposed to do. Also, it's crazy not to assign different values to the young and old, for obvious reasons. Ask a trial lawyer whether he'll get a bigger verdict from the death of an 80-year-old or that of an 18-year old.
This is the sort of thing that may go against our gut feelings and sensibilities, but can be shown as totally necessary and proper with only the smallest effort of reason. And what gets me the most is that it's always my own people, liberals, the "reality-based community" that fall for this one. Come on folks; we're smarter than this.
"Ooooh, you can't assign a value to human life!" YES WE CAN!
January 26, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, exactly. It is not the same thing as actually equating human life with a material value. It is simply a question of allocating scarce resources -- budget dollars -- by employing the best analytical means available to us.
Anyone who objects to this in principle should also object to all tort lawsuits for damages. Such suits do the same thing: they seek to assign dollar values to profoundly intangible things like the loss of a life, loss of mobility, or loss of sight or a limb.
January 27, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink