Welcome to WhoSaidYouSaid.com

WhoSaidYouSaid presents documentary video and creative content - a highlight reel of people in politics. Tune in for more every day. Comments are moderated and published at our discretion.

After registering, WhoSaidYouSaid will send you updates by e-mail, from which you can opt-out at any time. Your information will not be used for any other purpose without your express permission.

Member Login

Registration is closed

Sorry, you are not allowed to register by yourself on this site!

You must either be invited by one of our team member or request an invitation by email at info {at} yoursite {dot} com.

Note: If you are the admin and want to display the register form here, log in to your dashboard, and go to Settings > General and click "Anyone can register".

Forgot Password !

New password will be e-mailed to you.

Rep. Gardner grills EPA on job consequences

Posted by Kelly Maher on April 16th, 2011
 
Share |

Our own U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner R-Colo., is holding federal agencies’ feet to the fire. I urge you to watch the whole video and try to figure out if the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency is to consider jobs when proposing a rule? And why does it take five minutes of discussion to get a non-answer?

Responding to Gardner at the recent Environment and the Economy Subcommittee hearing was Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator, regarding a regulation on industry recycling of “coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts,” as reported by The Daily Caller.

I’ve transcribed some of their back-and-forth below…

Gardner: “So you did not do a direct economic analysis?”

Stanislaus: “No, no, we did a direct economic analysis of the various potential costs identified, which includes cost of compliance by the utility sector, the cost to the states, as well as various benefits.”

Gardner: “But not a cost on jobs?”

Stanislaus: “Not directly.”

Gardner: “So you did do a cost on jobs then? Indirectly?”

Stanislaus: “Well, we just looked at the direct costs from complying with the rule.”

Gardner: “So you did or you did not do jobs?”

Stanislaus: “Not . . . no.”

Gardner: “So, is it standard procedure then, for an economic analysis to not include jobs?”

Stanislaus: “Well, and I can get back to you on the specific details on how we do economic analysis. We do economic analysis based on the direct consequence of a rule.”

Gardner: “So you don’t think your rule will have direct consequences on jobs?”

Stanislaus: “Well, I mean, we did an analysis of the various costs of that and clearly we are cognizant of the economic consequences of a rule. You know so . . .”

Gardner: “So it does have an economic consequence?”

Stanislaus: “Sure, but we looked at both the costs and benefits of the rule.”

h/t The Daily Caller

and Peter Boddie

  • Post by Kelly Maher on April 16th, 2011

One Response to “Rep. Gardner grills EPA on job consequences”

  1. Ellen says:

    pathetic

    VA:F [1.9.7_1111]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.7_1111]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

More in Maher, Recent Videos (2 of 2 articles)