When the Administration withdrew a rule last month prohibiting young agricultural workers from performing some particularly dangerous tasks, the Department of Labor’s statement didnt't just say it was tabling the proposal, or reconsidering it, or even starting over from scratch. It went an extra step, adding: “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.”
Given that farm accidents are a very real concern, it's hard to read such an unusually vocal commitment to inaction as anything other than a political gesture. Indeed, the Administration won plaudits from big ag and its supporters. But if the White House actually thought that throwing young agricultural workers under the bus would truly satisfy the appetite of the opposition – and change the politics of the issue – it was wrong.
Here was Janet Fisher, West Virginia’s Deputy Agriculture Commissioner, speaking to the Register-Herald of Beckley: “They had so much of an outcry from farming communities around the country they decided to back off, for now.” The Texas Farm Bureau said that “cooler heads have prevailed–for now.” And here was the editorial page of the Boston Herald: “Take the proposed nanny-state farm-worker regulation withdrawn (but not killed) by the Labor Department last month.”
If you're thinking the Herald might suffer consequences for just making stuff up, don’t hold your breath.
The decision to back off this regulation is a true profile in cowardice. The White House could and should have stood up to the dishonest assertion by industry that the reg would stop family farmers from putting their children to work in the family business. For better or worse, they were exempted from the proposed rule. That notwithstanding, the Administration surrendered, quashing the proposal in an attempt to appease the opposition. In post-truth politics, giving the other side what they want doesn’t necessarily yield much, if anything, in the public debate. The Boston Herald editorial page just doesn’t care. Condemning young agricultural workers to more severe injuries, in other words, is not just bad policy, but is unlikely to win over many of the voters it was targeting.
Showing 2,822 results
Ben Somberg | May 9, 2012
When the Administration withdrew a rule last month prohibiting young agricultural workers from performing some particularly dangerous tasks, the Department of Labor’s statement didnt’t just say it was tabling the proposal, or reconsidering it, or even starting over from scratch. It went an extra step, adding: “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued […]
Rena Steinzor | May 8, 2012
Electoral politics or public policy? Policy or politics? One ripe example of how the White House rides herd on health and safety agencies, thinking about politics, not policy to determine what they should do, is provided by the latest poster child for curbing allegedly “excessive rules”: a U.S. Department of Agriculture proposal to take federal […]
Holly Doremus | May 7, 2012
Cross-posted from Legal Planet. You would think that by now federal agencies would have the NEPA process pretty well down. After all, it’s been the law since 1970, requiring that every federal agency prepare an environmental impact statement before committing itself to environmentally harmful actions. And it’s not that hard to do. Agencies just have […]
Chris Wold | May 4, 2012
In the nearly 20 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force, the linkages between trade and environmental harm have become clearer than ever. Trade agreements can lead to significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly when countries do not have sufficient environmental laws, policies, and institutions—and trade alone will not increase the […]
Rena Steinzor | May 3, 2012
By CPR President Rena Steinzor and Media Manager Ben Somberg Internal EPA emails obtained by CPR through a FOIA request reveal EPA officials’ frustration regarding the White House’s efforts to triangulate House Republicans’ ferocious attacks on regulations. A White House letter last year emphasizing regulatory costs but barely describing the lives saved and injuries avoided […]
David Hunter | May 2, 2012
On one level, President Obama’s Executive Order issued Tuesday, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” seems benign enough. After all, who would be against international cooperation and a desire to “reduce, eliminate or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements”? Moreover, the Order on its face does little more than set out priorities and procedures for enhancing international […]
| May 1, 2012
a(broad) perspective Today’s post is third in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties. Each month, this series will discuss one of these ten treaties. Previous posts are here. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes […]
Matthew Freeman | April 30, 2012
Last week, Bloomberg News ran a curious story conflating a range of issues under the banner of regulatory rollbacks. The piece keys off of the ongoing GOP push to deregulate America. That effort has been going on for decades, of course, but in the wake of the recession (made possible, not coincidentally, by deregulation in the […]
Ben Somberg | April 30, 2012
In its own words, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is “an independent federal agency dedicated to improving the administrative process through consensus-driven applied research, providing nonpartisan expert advice and recommendations for improvement of federal agency procedures.” On Tuesday afternoon, ACUS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are jointly sponsoring an event at […]