Job numbers continue to look bleak in this country. Shamefully, as the OECD reports today, unemployment in the U.S. is among the worst in the developed world. Where the jobless rate in the U.K., Italy, Ireland, Greece—and even economically troubled Portugal—has risen two percentage points since the economic recession began, it has increased a whopping five percentage points in the U.S.
The OECD also takes issue with the U.S.’s “unusually high share of long-term unemployment,” calling it a “striking feature” of the U.S. economy. Of particular concern, the OECD report says the rate of jobless people successfully finding work within a month’s time has fallen significantly in the U.S., compared to past recessions.
So news that broke last week in a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing that the EPA does not believe the impact regulations have on jobs is important or necessary when conducting economic analysis is reprehensible. Rep. Cory Gardner repeatedly asked EPA’s Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus to explain how the EPA can do economic studies without looking at regulations’ effect on jobs, but Mr. Stanislaus had no answer. You can watch the exchange here. (Warning: This video contains painful stumbling, stammering, and squirming, and may not be suitable for the weak-kneed viewer.)
Obama makes a mockery of the American people with statements like this which he gave earlier this month: “Making sure jobs are available is the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning and last thing I think about when I go to bed at night.”
With the EPA issuing more burdensome and costlier regulations than any other agency—you can see a partial list of all the environmental rules and regulations coming down the pike here—it is deplorable that, by the EPA’s own admission, the impact regulations have on jobs may not even be considered.