• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Facts on Rising Red Tape: A Response to The Washington Post

    Do regulatory costs matter? Not quite, according to the January 14 “Fact Checker” column on WashingtonPost.com.

    The column, by Glenn Kessler, criticizes Heritage’s recent “Red Tape Rising” report, which documented the growing cost of federal regulation in fiscal 2010. Noting that the study has been prominently cited by Rep. Darrell Issa (R–CA), the new chairman of the House Oversight Committee, he awards Issa a metaphorical “Pinocchio” for using data from the report. (Issa was given a second Pinocchio for using a study commissioned by the Small Business Administration on the total cost of regulation.)

    Kessler seems eager to call the Congressman a wooden-headed liar, but you’d think he would at least identify a misstatement or some kind of error in the Heritage report before leveling the charge. He does not, although Kessler does manage to misinterpret or misstate some facts himself.

    His primary criticism isn’t that we had our facts wrong about the cost of regulation but that regulatory cost in and of itself is not relevant to policymaking. It’s enough to leave Geppetto himself scratching his head.

    The approach we used in the Heritage study was direct. We took regulatory agencies’ own estimates of the costs of major new rules being imposed during the fiscal year and made them consistent as to inflation and discount rates. The result: a total reported cost for major new regulations. For fiscal 2010, that cost—from 43 separate major rules adopted—was some $28 billion, or $26.5 billion when the small amount of deregulation achieved is netted out.

    (Kessler cites unnamed Administration officials who suggest that the largest component of this total—some $10 billion to meet new fuel economy standards—represented double-counting. Our figure, however, is consistent with the analysis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and we stand by it.)

    Kessler contrasts the approach used in our study with that of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), stating that OMB looks at costs over a 10-year period. It does, but OMB also reports annually on the cost of new regulations adopted that year. Rather than conflict with the OMB approach, our methodology was actually based on OMB’s. In fact, “Red Tape Rising’s” historical data on regulatory costs came directly from OMB. Our only addition was data for fiscal year 2010, which was obtained from reports by the various regulatory agencies.

    The Fact Checker column does identify one difference between our methodology and OMB’s: OMB does not include rules from independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is hardly a flaw, though. Costs imposed by these agencies are as real to the average American as costs from other agencies, and they should not be ignored.

    Kessler also argues that Obama cannot be held responsible for all of the rules adopted during the past year, suggesting that some were imposed by court order and others were begun under his predecessor. Well, no one said he was. Our methodology was not tailored to make Obama look bad. It’s the same methodology we used in reports issued during the Bush Administration. The primary purpose of our report is to quantify the cost of regulation, not to assess blame.

    That said, it would hardly be unfair to assign the Obama Administration primary responsibility for the size of last year’s regulatory tsunami. Obama initiatives ranging from fuel economy standards to health care regulations vaulted regulatory costs to unprecedented levels. Conversely, instances of the Administration working to limit regulatory costs were virtually non-existent.

    Rather than deny responsibility for increased regulation, the Administration has eagerly claimed credit for it, pointing out the benefits of new rules. And that leads to Kessler’s primary criticism about “Red Tape Rising”: It calculates costs rather than benefits. This, he says, “is like focusing … only on the calories in a meal and ignoring the nutritional content.” But regardless of nutritional value, it’s worthwhile to know how many calories you are taking in, or you will get awfully fat.

    Moreover, Kessler seems to assume that if the benefits of a rule exceed its costs, the rule is automatically good and just policy. It isn’t. For starters, it’s extremely difficult to measure—much less predict—benefits. And as a result, regulators calculate benefits far less often than they calculate costs.

    But even when benefits can be calculated with some reasonable pretense of accuracy, this does not negate the costs. For starters, the recipients of the benefit are usually not the same people who pay the costs. The costs do not disappear—they still have an impact on those who must pay.

    More fundamentally, even if well-justified, any new mandate or restriction imposed by government increases the role of government in the economy and in our daily lives. It may be good for some people—it may even be necessary—but each new rule nevertheless incrementally reduces the ability of Americans to make decisions for themselves.

    For these reasons, policymakers such as Issa are quite correct to keep an eye on the overall amount of regulation being imposed on Americans. And reporting that is the point of—not a flaw in—Heritage’s report.

    Co-authored by Diane Katz.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to The Facts on Rising Red Tape: A Response to The Washington Post

    1. George Colgrove, VA says:

      Average Household income – over the last decade steady @ $50,233.00 (average income for a single fed is $123,000)

      Average Household credit card debt is $7,300 and rising.

      (People are using credit cards to pay taxes now a days – the uncalculated or recognized portion of the national debt.)

      Average household mortgage = $70,000

      Therefore, the Average American owes 1.5 to 1.6 times what they earn in a year.

      Over the last few years the federal government seems to be only able to pilfer a maximum of $2.55 trillion from the back pockets of the American Citizens. Let us call this their “Income.”

      This goes to say the maximum revolving debt the federal government should be allowed to carry to be in line with the people they claim they are proud that they work for is $4.08 trillion. Today we are 3.5 times that and climbing fast!

      Households are going bankrupt at those levels.

      Hello – is anyone in the federal government listening? Does this mean anything to you? Who in the world are you feds working for anyways!

      We Americans are paying dearly for federal departments agencies and programs that are nothing more than what seems to be gigantic arms of the democratic party.

    2. Bobbie says:

      Wow George, thank you so much for addressing these greedy government goons. We are a family of five struggling to maintain our independence, targeted by government to become dependent, we struggle to survive under 40k, gross! Yet government feds who hold no accountability, make over 3x's more! OUTRAGEOUS! UNRULY AND UNFAIR!

      Taking advantage of the responsible while collecting their unearned, overpaid income off the backs of the responsible!

      There is something mentally wrong with those who think the corrupt way they run this country. It's as if their minds can only think to distort and deceive and they stand in faith of it WITH TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE TRUTH!.Then the hypocrites point their fingers at anyone but themselves.

      Thank you Mr. Issa, for your innate courage and strength, dignity and honestly!

      We're behind you and all who stand in GOOD FAITH TO RESTORE THE GREATNESS OF THIS COUNTRY!

    3. Pingback: ~THIS JUST IN… | Just Piper

    4. Pingback: » Financial News Update – 1/20/11 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter

    5. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Facts on Rising Red Tape: A Response to The Washington Post | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    6. I am also commenting to let you understand what a remarkable experience our princess experienced reading the blog. She discovered a lot of issues, most notably what it's like to have a great giving character to make the mediocre ones just know specific problematic subject matter. You truly exceeded our expected results. Thanks for delivering those effective, trustworthy, educational not to mention unique tips about that topic to Evelyn.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.