{"id":1602,"date":"2011-02-09T16:42:45","date_gmt":"2011-02-09T21:42:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/000af36.netsolhost.com\/wordpress1\/2011\/02\/09\/evidence-of-regulations-killing-job-anyone\/"},"modified":"2011-02-09T16:42:45","modified_gmt":"2011-02-09T21:42:45","slug":"evidence-of-regulations-killing-job-anyone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2011\/02\/09\/evidence-of-regulations-killing-job-anyone\/","title":{"rendered":"Evidence of Regulations Killing Job? Anyone?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I just discovered what could be a terrific website called Remapping Debate<\/a>. It launched last October. <\/p>\n

\n

The heart of our work will be original reporting.  We take seriously the idea that the job of journalists is to question and to illuminate.  We believe that we need to question ourselves as much as we question others.<\/p>\n

We think we need to reject the mental borderlines that leaves "mainstream" reporters generally speaking to "mainstream" sources, and "alternative" reporters generally speaking to "alternative" sources.<\/p>\n

We insist that it is probing \u2013 not stenography \u2013 that can illuminate and inform, and that challenging a policy maker or policy advocate to engage with alternatives to a pre-scripted sound bite represents not commentary but an essential element of real reporting.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While exploring the site, I found this article<\/a>, which argues that those claiming \u201cregulations kill jobs\u201d clearly have no evidence to back up their claim. Apropos of my post two days ago<\/a> on this question, the article illuminates.<\/p>\n

\n

The idea is widely taken for granted. \u201cJob-killing regulation\u201d has become not only a mantra of today\u2019s Republicans, but also the marketing pitch for a host of plans to have Congress exercise preemptive powers over federal rule-making and enforcement efforts.<\/p>\n

It turns out, however, that it is easier to generate provocative rhetoric on this topic than to provide historical evidence for the proposition that regulations do, in fact, kill jobs. Through repeated inquiry, Remapping Debate established that, at least in Washington, vociferous opponents of regulation are often unable or unwilling to offer any such evidence, even in the area of regulation \u2014 environmental protection \u2014 that is the ground zero of current Republican fury.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The article gives numerous examples of statements on this issue by people who can provide no evidence to back up their claims. I sent it on to Phil Rucker, one of the Post <\/em>reporters who responded to me when I sent him my post. He said The Post<\/em> will fact check these claims in future articles. <\/p>\n

In this sidebar below, Remapping Debate summarizes the responses it received after asking for the evidence that EPA regulations kill jobs. Note that Congressman Darrell Issa, the new chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform who is leading the charge against regulations, is among them.<\/p>\n

\n

Show us the evidence<\/p>\n

Remapping Debate invited several prominent opponents of regulation, in and out of government, to provide evidence of EPA regulations that \u201ckilled\u201d jobs. Each of the following was apparently unable or unwilling to do so:<\/p>\n