{"id":294871,"date":"2017-02-15T01:55:37","date_gmt":"2017-02-15T00:55:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/trump-wants-to-take-an-axe-to-the-regulatory-state-counterspin-interview-with-amit-narang-on-the-anti-regulation-rule\/"},"modified":"2017-02-15T01:55:37","modified_gmt":"2017-02-15T00:55:37","slug":"trump-wants-to-take-an-axe-to-the-regulatory-state-counterspin-interview-with-amit-narang-on-the-anti-regulation-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/trump-wants-to-take-an-axe-to-the-regulatory-state-counterspin-interview-with-amit-narang-on-the-anti-regulation-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Trump Wants to Take an Axe to the Regulatory State\u2019 &#8211; CounterSpin interview with Amit Narang on the anti-regulation rule"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Janine Jackson interviewed Amit Narang about Trump&#8217;s anti-regulation rule for the <a href=\"http:\/\/fair.org\/home\/kevin-kumashiro-on-betsy-devos-amit-narang-on-anti-regulation-rule\/\">February 10, 2017, episode<\/a> of <strong>CounterSpin<\/strong>. This is a lightly edited transcript.<\/em><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_5585351\" style=\"width: 609px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"http:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/AmitNarang.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\" wp-image-5585351\" src=\"http:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/AmitNarang.jpg\" alt=\"Amit Narang (image: RT)\" width=\"599\" height=\"300\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><em>Amit Narang: &#8220;A lack of regulation hits the poor and the vulnerable the hardest.&#8221; (image: <strong>RT<\/strong>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"wrapperMI_0\" class=\"wrap-mjp  \" style=\"padding:5px 0px 40px 0px;margin:0px;width:100%\">\n<div class=\"Eabove-mjp\" id=\"Eabove-mjp_0\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"subwrap-MI\">\n<div class=\"jp-innerwrap\">\n<div class=\"innerx\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"innerleft\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"innerright\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"innertab\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"interface-mjp verdana-mjp\" style=\"height:71px\" id=\"interfaceMI_0\">\n<div class=\"MI-image Himg right-mjp\" id=\"MI_image_0\" style=\"width:auto;height:71px;overflow:hidden\"><\/div>\n<div id=\"T_mp3j_0\" class=\"player-track-title left-mjp norm-mjp plain-mjp childNorm-mjp childPlain-mjp\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"bars_holder\">\n<div class=\"loadMI_mp3j\" id=\"load_mp3j_0\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"poscolMI_mp3j\" id=\"poscol_mp3j_0\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"posbarMI_mp3j\" id=\"posbar_mp3j_0\"><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div id=\"P-Time-MI_0\" class=\"jp-play-time\"><\/div>\n<div id=\"T-Time-MI_0\" class=\"jp-total-time\"><\/div>\n<div id=\"statusMI_0\" class=\"statusMI\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"transport-MI\">\n<div class=\"play-mjp\" id=\"playpause_mp3j_0\">Play<\/div>\n<div class=\"stop-mjp\" id=\"stop_mp3j_0\">Stop<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"buttons-wrap-mjp\" id=\"buttons-wrap-mjp_0\">\n<div class=\"mp3j-popout-MI\" id=\"lpp_mp3j_0\">pop out<\/div>\n<div id=\"download_mp3j_0\" class=\"dloadmp3-MI\"><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"mjp-volwrap\">\n<div class=\"MIsliderVolume\" id=\"vol_mp3j_0\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"innerExt1\" id=\"innerExt1_0\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"innerExt2\" id=\"innerExt2_0\"><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"Ebetween-mjp\" id=\"Ebetween-mjp_0\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"listwrap_mp3j\" id=\"L_mp3j_0\">\n<div class=\"wrapper-mjp\">\n<div class=\"playlist-colour\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"wrapper-mjp\">\n<ul class=\"ul-mjp darken1-mjp verdana-mjp med-mjp childNorm-mjp childPlain-mjp left-mjp\" id=\"UL_mp3j_0\">\n<li><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div id=\"mp3j_finfo_0\" class=\"mp3j-finfo\">\n<div class=\"mp3j-finfo-sleeve\">\n<div id=\"mp3j_finfo_gif_0\" class=\"mp3j-finfo-gif\"><\/div>\n<div id=\"mp3j_finfo_txt_0\" class=\"mp3j-finfo-txt\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"mp3j-finfo-close\" id=\"mp3j_finfo_close_0\">X<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"mp3j_dlf_0\" class=\"mp3j-dlframe\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"mp3j-nosolution\" id=\"mp3j_nosolution_0\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"Ebelow-mjp\" id=\"Ebelow-mjp_0\"><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>MP3jPLAYLISTS.MI_0 = [<br \/>\n\t{ name: &#8220;1. CounterSpin Amit Narang Interview &#8220;, formats: [&#8220;mp3&#8221;], mp3: &#8220;aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYWlyLm9yZy9hdWRpby9jb3VudGVyc3Bpbi9Db3VudGVyU3BpbjE3MDIxME5hcmFuZy5tcDM=&#8221;, counterpart:&#8221;&#8221;, artist: &#8220;&#8221;, image: &#8220;true&#8221;, imgurl: &#8220;&#8221; }<br \/>\n];<\/p>\n<p>MP3jPLAYERS[0] = { list:MP3jPLAYLISTS.MI_0, tr:0, type:&#8217;MI&#8217;, lstate:true, loop:false, play_txt:&#8217;Play&#8217;, pause_txt:&#8217;Pause&#8217;, pp_title:&#8217;FAIR&#8217;, autoplay:false, download:true, vol:80, height:71, cssclass:&#8217; &#8216;, popout_css:{ enabled:true, \t\t\tcolours: [&#8220;#fff&#8221;, &#8220;rgba(201,207,232,0.35)&#8221;, &#8220;rgb(241,241,241)&#8221;, &#8220;rgba(245,5,5,0.7)&#8221;, &#8220;rgba(92,201,255,0.8)&#8221;, &#8220;transparent&#8221;, &#8220;transparent&#8221;, &#8220;#525252&#8221;, &#8220;#525252&#8221;, &#8220;#768D99&#8221;, &#8220;#47ACDE&#8221;, &#8220;&#8221;, 600, 200 ],<br \/>\n\t\t\tcssInterface: { &#8220;color&#8221;: &#8220;#525252&#8221; },<br \/>\n\t\t\tcssTitle: { &#8220;left&#8221;: &#8220;16px&#8221;, &#8220;right&#8221;:&#8221;16px&#8221;, &#8220;top&#8221;:&#8221;8px&#8221; },<br \/>\n\t\t\tcssImage: { &#8220;overflow&#8221;: &#8220;hidden&#8221;, &#8220;width&#8221;:&#8221;auto&#8221;, &#8220;height&#8221;:&#8221;71px&#8221;  },<br \/>\n\t\t\tcssFontSize: { &#8220;title&#8221;: &#8220;16px&#8221;, &#8220;caption&#8221;: &#8220;11.2px&#8221;, &#8220;list&#8221;: &#8220;12px&#8221; },<br \/>\n\t\t\tclasses: { interface:&#8217; verdana-mjp&#8217;, title:&#8217; left-mjp norm-mjp plain-mjp childNorm-mjp childPlain-mjp&#8217;, image:&#8217; Himg right-mjp&#8217;, poscol:&#8221;, ul:&#8217; darken1-mjp verdana-mjp med-mjp childNorm-mjp childPlain-mjp left-mjp&#8217; }} };<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.fair.org\/audio\/counterspin\/CounterSpin170210.mp3\"><strong>MP3 Link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p><b>Janine Jackson:<\/b> As with other of his maneuvers, the intent of Donald Trump\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/arstechnica.com\/science\/2017\/01\/trump-orders-1-in-2-out-rule-for-federal-regulations\/\">executive order on regulations<\/a> might have been equally well-conveyed by a crayoned sign\u2014in this case reading, \u201cRegulations Bad.\u201d For any new rule added, agencies are directed to, \u201cunless prohibited by law,\u201d identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, and the cost of all new regulations \u201cshall be no greater than zero.\u201d As with other of his orders, it\u2019s not clear that this can even be implemented without tangling various agencies in knots, and equally unclear how much that matters, since the intent can be plenty destructive on its own.<\/p>\n<p>Amit Narang is regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen\u2019s Congress Watch. The group has just filed suit against Trump based on this order. He joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome to <b>CounterSpin<\/b>, Amit Narang.<\/p>\n<p><b>Amit Narang:<\/b> Thank you so much for having me.<\/p>\n<p><b>JJ:<\/b> The order seems at a glance to rely on an almost cartoonish understanding of how regulation works, or why it exists, for that matter. But with reference to Public Citizen\u2019s lawsuit around it, \u00a0White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer just <a href=\"http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-usa-trump-regulations-idUSKBN15N26W\">said<\/a> that that suit \u201cpresumes a lot of outcomes that are wildly inaccurate.\u201d So I wonder how you respond to that claim, and what the grounds are for Public Citizen\u2019s suit around this executive order.<\/p>\n<p><b>AN:<\/b> I think that that claim by Mr. Spicer is laughable. Essentially what he\u2019s saying is that, oh no, this executive order is not going to operate the way we intend it to operate, which is to make it almost impossible to regulate in areas that are key to protecting the public\u2019s health, safety, making sure Wall Street is accountable to the public and not acting recklessly, environmental protections. And let\u2019s be clear, President Trump has made claims that he wants to get rid of 75 percent of existing regulations, without specifying, of course, which ones those are, but he can\u2019t do that without touching bedrock, fundamental protections that the public takes for granted, frankly, and that Congress has produced legislation to protect, that is some of the most popular legislation that Congress has ever produced, stuff like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Dodd-Frank Act.<\/p>\n<p>If that is the case, that Trump wants to essentially take an axe to the regulatory state, then it\u2019s ridiculous for Mr. Spicer to say that the way we are reading the executive order, which is that agencies will be simply unable to regulate in critical areas across the board, somehow that is a problematic reading of the EO. It\u2019s exactly what the EO intends, and we are taking it very seriously. I assume the administration is as well. I wonder where these remarks are coming from from Mr. Spicer.<\/p>\n<p><b>JJ:<\/b> As with many things Trump, one wants to both say, you know, what is this nuttiness? and then also to say, well, it doesn\u2019t come out of nowhere. When Donald Trump talks about there being 72 rules for something, he\u2019s trading on an existing idea, that there are lots of dusty, arcane regulations that businesses nevertheless have to comply with, which if they didn\u2019t, those businesses would be providing jobs and national prosperity. This is kind of taking it to the Nth degree. But, bigger picture, how do we argue back against that general idea?<\/p>\n<p><b>AN:<\/b> So that general idea, as you\u2019re saying, is false, that regulations somehow cost the economy; in fact, if anything is true, it\u2019s the opposite. And we saw that with the Wall Street crash. Massive deregulation of Wall Street led to $14 to $22 trillion in lost wealth to this country. That was average Americans, mostly, bearing those losses and losing their homes, okay? To be clear, regulation protects jobs, it protects our economy. Now, of course, big businesses and corporate America and conservatives that are ideologically opposed to regulation want to paint this picture, which is completely a false picture.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to the presumption underlying this executive order, that there are tons of old regulations that serve no purpose, that are all dusty and laying around and can be easily repealed, and of course, since they serve no purpose, they must be costing corporate America a lot of money\u2014that\u2019s a little bit of sarcasm; I don\u2019t know how they reconcile that\u2014but even that presumption is false.<\/p>\n<p>Why? Because President Obama initiated in 2011 what\u2019s called regulatory retrospective review process, where he asked agencies to look at the rules that they had on their books and see if, in fact, there were any of these old regulations that really weren\u2019t serving any purpose, that would be able to be repealed without harming the public. And they did find some. They didn\u2019t find that many, and frankly, they didn\u2019t come anywhere close to pleasing corporate America with this initiative. But in any case, they did find some, and they did repeal them.<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_5585355\" style=\"width: 364px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"http:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/AirPollution-e1487100355734.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-5585355\" src=\"http:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/AirPollution-e1487100355734.jpg\" alt=\"Air pollution (photo: USFWS)\" width=\"354\" height=\"232\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><em>Will the government have to stop regulating mercury in the air in order to regulating lead in water? (photo: USFWS)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>And this is a real problem for the Trump administration\u2019s implementation of this executive order. Because under the executive order, in order for agencies to put out new regulations\u2014let\u2019s say, updated lead standards in drinking water, which is not a hypothetical; the EPA\u2019s supposed to do that in 2017\u2014in order for the EPA to do that, they have to find a regulation that doesn\u2019t serve any purpose, that\u2019s just sitting on the books, that\u2019s costing the energy industry money, to get rid of. Well, if those regulations have already been identified by the Obama administration and have already been repealed, what are they going to turn to?<\/p>\n<p>Then we start talking about regulations that absolutely still serve a purpose, that still protect the public\u2014say, getting mercury out of the water, essentially, by requiring power plants to not spew mercury out when they spew out emissions that eventually fall into the water that then makes its way into the food that we eat. Are we going to sacrifice mercury regulations in order to then regulate lead in drinking water?<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019m constantly amused by claims from the Trump administration and other conservatives that they aren\u2019t against regulation. And yet, at every step, they&#8217;re trying to stop any regulation that the EPA does to enforce the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act or to combat climate change. And, frankly, that happens across agencies, when it comes to public health and safety.<\/p>\n<p><b>JJ:<\/b> I just want to draw out one point which I think doesn\u2019t get a lot of attention, which is that there\u2019s a substrain, isn\u2019t there, of this \u201cregulations vs. jobs\u201d argument, that says that people of color in particular should be resentful of red tape that\u2019s impeding their advancement somehow. I wonder how you address that idea in particular, that for some reason regulations pose a particular harm for poor people and people of color?<\/p>\n<p><b>AN:<\/b> So the theory, just to give it its due in terms of explaining it, is that because regulation imposes costs on consumer products, imposes costs on electricity prices \u2014 now, that\u2019s them saying it, not me, but let\u2019s just take it as a plausible hypothetical \u2014 because consumers bear those costs of regulations, it hits the poor\u2014and thus, I presume the assumption is, minorities\u2014harder than it hits wealthy Americans.<\/p>\n<p>Now, I don\u2019t believe that is the case. Public Citizen has shown in report after report that climate change regulations do not result in increased electricity prices in any state in this country. In fact, they will result in reduced energy prices, because of the energy efficiency measures that are forced through regulatory action on climate change. But these are corporate lobbyshop\u2013driven studies, and so of course they can show what they want to show. The truth is that, as I mentioned, a lack of regulation hits the poor and the vulnerable the hardest. This is just in terms of the pocketbook. The Obama administration successfully put out a regulation near the end of the term to increase overtime pay. That will absolutely help the poor in this country, poor workers in this country.<\/p>\n<p><b>JJ:<\/b> And women as well, yeah.<\/p>\n<p><b>AN:<\/b> Environmental justice measures will help those urban areas where the dirtiest power production facilities are inevitably located. And then, moving beyond that, regulation has been critical to combating discrimination, and that has been a direct benefit to minorities in this country. So this is absolutely a false narrative that really doesn\u2019t reflect the lived reality of the poor and minorities in this country.<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_5585357\" style=\"width: 360px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"http:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/NYTPruitt.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-5585357 \" src=\"http:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/NYTPruitt.png\" alt=\"NYT: Scott Pruitt Is Seen Cutting the E.P.A. With a Scalpel, Not a Cleaver\" width=\"350\" height=\"366\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><em><strong>New York Times<\/strong> (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/02\/05\/us\/politics\/scott-pruitt-is-seen-cutting-the-epa-with-a-scalpel-not-a-cleaver.html?_r=1\">2\/5\/17<\/a>): &#8220;In Mr. Pruitt&#8230;the president has tapped a surgeon, not a butcher.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><b>JJ:<\/b> I don\u2019t think I was the only one who was dismayed to see a <b>New York Times<\/b> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/02\/05\/us\/politics\/scott-pruitt-is-seen-cutting-the-epa-with-a-scalpel-not-a-cleaver.html?_r=0\">story<\/a> headlined \u201cScott Pruitt Is Seen Cutting the EPA With a Scalpel, Not a Cleaver.\u201d I mean, you got the substance, that Pruitt was expected to reduce the EPA\u2019s effectiveness, perhaps to near meaninglessness. But you still felt like you were somehow supposed to be pleased that he was a &#8220;surgeon, not a butcher,&#8221; who \u201cknows the legal intricacies of environmental regulation\u2014and deregulation.\u201d Now, I\u2019m not saying every headline should be \u201cRun for Your Life,\u201d but this seemed a little bit like misplaced emphasis. What kinds of reporting would be helpful \u2014 you can respond to that, of course \u2014 but also, what kinds of reporting would be helpful in conveying the set of issues at stake here?<\/p>\n<p><b>AN:<\/b> So I agree, that\u2019s disappointing that Scott Pruitt is being represented in that way. He is a potential EPA head that simply doesn\u2019t believe in a federal role for regulating the environment, this despite the fact that environmental issues of course cross state boundaries. Clean water is not something that is just related to one state; dirty water passes state lines, just like with air pollution. And, of course, climate change is the biggest threat, and that is not something that is a state-level threat; that\u2019s a federal threat, that\u2019s a global threat.<\/p>\n<p>I think what we need in terms of reporting is far more skepticism towards putting in place individuals that head these agencies that fundamentally disagree with the mission of those agencies. And then, beyond that, to the extent that they are citing what\u2019s viewed as statistics, or some kind of grounding in basis for their anti-regulatory or deregulatory measures, those have to be vetted far more carefully. Industry and industry lobbyists in DC get away with so much when it comes to what they claim to be studies and reports, that only look at the economic costs of regulation to their clients, to their industries, and never look at the benefits of regulations, the very real benefits, but the less tangible benefits when it comes to clean air, clean water, a safe financial system that doesn\u2019t implode, safe food, anti-discrimination measures.<\/p>\n<p>I think we\u2019re going to see now, just like with Obamacare and the attempt to repeal Obamacare, now all of a sudden people realize, oh, this is a very important law that gives us tangible benefits. The same thing is going to happen in the regulatory space, and I really think that journalists need to point out exactly what\u2019s at stake and exactly what people will be losing as the Trump administration seeks to repeal all sorts of Obama-era regulations, and potentially even older regulations, that absolutely benefit the public greatly.<\/p>\n<p><b>JJ:<\/b> We\u2019ve been speaking with Amit Narang. He\u2019s regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen\u2019s Congress Watch. You can follow their work, including their lawsuit against Donald Trump, online at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.citizen.org\/\">Citizen.org<\/a>. Amit Narang, thank you very much for joining us this week on <b>CounterSpin<\/b>.<\/p>\n<p><b>AN:<\/b> My pleasure. Any time.<\/p>\n<p>This piece was reprinted by <a href=\"http:\/\/rinf.com\">RINF Alternative News<\/a> with permission from <a href=\"http:\/\/fair.org\/home\/trump-wants-to-take-an-axe-to-the-regulatory-state\/\">FAIR<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Janine Jackson interviewed Amit Narang about Trump&#8217;s anti-regulation rule for the February 10, 2017, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript. Amit Narang: &#8220;A lack of regulation hits the poor and the vulnerable the hardest.&#8221; (image: RT) Play Stop pop out X MP3jPLAYLISTS.MI_0 = [ { name: &#8220;1. CounterSpin Amit Narang Interview &#8220;, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2521,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[519],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-294871","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-newswire"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294871","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2521"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=294871"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294871\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=294871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=294871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=294871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}