Is an economic analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that does not include a job study a complete economic analysis?
That is the question put by U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner to EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus.
Now, the answer to this question is a simple “No,” followed by “Duh?”
The impact of a regulation on the job markert is possibly THE MOST IMPORTANT datum in any economic analysis. Just ask any Republican or Democrat in Congress. Even Mr. Stanislaus’ CEO, President Barack Obama, thinks jobs are important in economic calculations.
But watch Mr. Stanislaus wriggle as he is questioned with some persistance by Mr. Gardner, who would be quite willing to take “no” for an answer.
Why should any congressman need to exert this much energy to extract a simple “yes” or “no” from an EPA bureaucrat? Because sometimes the truth is a rotten tooth that must be pulled, and persistence, God willing, occasionally wins out.
The lesson embedded in this embarrassing episode is that no future EPA regulation should be passed unless accompanied by and economic analysis that includes a job impact analysis.