This op-ed was orignally published in the Washington Monthly.
In December of 2017, Donald Trump gathered the press for a variation on a familiar activity from his real estate mogul days. Stretched between a tower of paper taller than himself, representing all current federal regulations, and a small stack labeled "1960," was a thick piece of red ribbon – red tape, if you will. The president promised that "we're going to get back below that 1960s level." With his daughter Ivanka and other advisors by his side, Trump used comically large scissors to cut the ribbon.
Cutting regulations has been a priority for nearly every Republican politician since at least the 1980s. But the Trump-era GOP, unsatisfied with the existing deregulatory toolkit, has found a bigger pair of scissors. Call it cost-cost analysis: to justify getting rid of regulations they dislike, Republicans have decided to systematically ignore their benefits.
Since the Reagan era, there has been a consensus among conservatives that cost-benefit analysis is the gold standard for evaluating regulations. It requires quantifying the benefits and costs of a proposed regulation, expressed in monetary terms. If its benefits exceed the costs, a regulation is justified, but not otherwise. For conservatives, this approach provides a veneer of objective, mathematical rigor that can be aimed against regulations whose benefits are hard to measure in dollar amounts. What's the precise value of a new clean air standard that slows down the rate of global warming? Cost-benefit analysis also ignores the secondary benefits of regulations that are hard to preemptively measure, like when new standards spawn new, vibrant industries. (Think fuel efficiency standards and electric cars).
Nevertheless, the cost-benefit analysis has given conservatives common ground with some moderates, like Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein; many economists; and at least a few environmentally inclined scholars. The critics of cost-benefit analysis have mainly come from the left. They argue that it is wrong to put a dollar figure on the lives saved by a regulation or on an endangered species. ("Should we really not mandate clean drinking water if it doesn't turn out to save money?")
But now conservatives are showing increasing disenchantment with cost-benefit analysis. Specifically, they like the consideration of costs but are unenthusiastic about the benefits side of the equation. In the Trump era, as Public Citizen's Amit Narang has written, costs play an expanding role in regulatory policy, both in Congress and the executive branch, whereas benefits are increasingly sidelined or underestimated.
Showing 2,828 results
Daniel Farber | January 9, 2019
This op-ed was orignally published in the Washington Monthly. In December of 2017, Donald Trump gathered the press for a variation on a familiar activity from his real estate mogul days. Stretched between a tower of paper taller than himself, representing all current federal regulations, and a small stack labeled "1960," was a thick piece […]
Daniel Farber | January 8, 2019
Originally published on Legal Planet. "Bureaucrat" is just another name for public servant. It has been said that a thin blue line of police protects us from the worst elements of society. But it is a thin gray line of underpaid, overworked, anonymous bureaucrats who protect society against more insidious risks – risks ranging from nuclear […]
Daniel Farber | December 31, 2018
A version of this post was originally published on Legal Planet. What are the key things to watch for in 2019 in the environmental area? Regulations. According to the Trump administration’s schedule, three big rules should be issued in March: repeal of the Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS), repeal and replacement of the Clean […]
James Goodwin | December 31, 2018
As I documented in my most recent post, 2018 was an active year for regulatory policy, bringing several notable controversies, milestones, and developments. For those who follow this area, 2019 promises to be just as lively and momentous. Indeed, it appears that the dynamics that spurred much of the regulatory policy-related action in 2018 – […]
Daniel Farber | December 31, 2018
A version of this post was originally published on Legal Planet. Yes, it was a grim year in many ways. But there actually were some bright spots. Here are just the high points. Scott Pruitt. Pruitt resigned under fire. While his successor may be more successful in some ways, the fact remains that Pruitt was […]
Matthew Freeman | December 27, 2018
As we prepare to tie a bow on 2018, it’s worth looking back at the various op-eds CPR’s Member Scholars and staff penned over the course of the year. You can find and read every single one of them on our op-ed page. But here are some highlights for quick(er) perusal: In February, CPR’s Founding […]
Katie Tracy | December 26, 2018
As 2018 ends and we take stock of the developments in workers’ rights over the first half of the Trump administration, there is little forward progress to report. This administration, acting with minimal to no congressional oversight, has consistently neglected to protect America’s workers, instead rolling back and delaying numerous Obama-era regulations and safeguards, ignoring […]
James Goodwin | December 20, 2018
While regulatory policy developments might not lead evening news broadcasts or dominate newspaper headlines, they can have an enormous impact on our day-to-day lives. Regulatory policy has been a particular hotbed of activity during the Trump administration, which swept into office determined to undermine or corrupt the institutions responsible for keeping Americans and their environment […]
Maxine A Burkett | December 17, 2018
This post was co-authored by Kevin Morris, a J.D. candidate at the University of Hawaii at Manoa William S. Richardson School of Law. He serves as a research assistant for Maxine Burkett. This post was originally published by the Wilson Center's New Security Beat. In Alaska's arctic communities, Inuit contemplating the need to relocate have […]