Archive for the ‘Congress Watch Column’ Category

This Labor Day, I’ll be thinking about my family.

My great grandfather, an immigrant from eastern Europe who crossed the Atlantic to work in a western Pennsylvania steel mill, died in that mill in 1929 when a piece of industrial equipment came crashing down on him.

His daughter – my grandmother – was less than a year old.

How many millions of families have suffered similar tragedies? The deadly nature of work in the “Steel Valley” is well documented. Local histories and literary classics such as Blood on the Forge and Out of This Furnace testify to this bloody past.

Clearly, we’ve come a long way since 1929, most significantly with the formation of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) in 1971.

Nevertheless, tragic workplace deaths occur in America almost every day. Scroll through OSHA’s 2014 document recording “FY14 Fatalities and Catastrophes to Date” (PDF), and you’ll begin to get a sense of the lives lost each day that may have been prevented.

Continue Reading

Share/Bookmark

As a general rule, cost-benefit analyses are suspect.

Such analyses – which federal agencies perform to weigh the health and safety “benefits” of regulations (benefits like lower infant mortality rates and reliably safe and clean drinking water) against the “cost” of lost profits to Corporate America – result in a distorted model of a regulation’s impact. Invariably, the distortion creates a bias that exaggerates the regulation’s “cost,” largely because cost (measured in dollars and cents) is more easily quantified than benefits.

So one might think it’s a good thing that economists at the FDA have started factoring in pleasure – or, more specifically, its loss – when weighing the costs and benefits of new regulations. And one might think that a regulation that is expected to result in lower infant mortality rates, fewer cancer diagnoses, and longer, healthier lives for the American public to be a winner in terms of “pleasure,” right?

Unfortunately, one would be wrong.

Shockingly, the FDA’s cost-benefit analysis for a new tobacco regulation resulted in the rule’s projected health and safety benefits – fewer instances of heart and lung disease and fewer early deaths – being reduced by 70 percent due to the “loss in pleasure” smokers endure when trying to break their addiction.

As an ex-smoker myself (tobacco-free since 2008), I am well aware that the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal certainly constitute a “loss in pleasure.” But the notion that a smoker’s physical discomfort for a relatively brief period of time somehow trumps by 70 percent the health benefits of quitting (not to mention the increase in one’s disposable income and the gradual restoration of one’s senses of taste and smell) is utterly outrageous.

Continue Reading

Follow on Twitter

Last week, we hosted an online conversation with Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, and Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division.

Robert and Lisa discussed the progress we’ve made together so far — and the next steps we need to take — on some of the most pressing issues facing the country.

Miss the webinar? Catch up by watching the video below:

(Note: Unfortunately because of network issues beyond our control, you can’t see Robert or Lisa for most of the presentation. But the audio is there, and the analysis and insights they provide are inspiring and thought-provoking).

Some of our highest priorities include ending corporate money’s domination of our elections, fighting for universal health care, reining in Big Bank recklessness and stopping congressional attacks on consumer protection.

Members of Congress — Democrats, Republicans and independents alike — must hear from We the People that these issues matter to us.

We’re going on the offensive this summer, and we need your help.

To make sure you’re invited to our live online discussion in July, sign up today.

Rick Claypool is the online director for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division.

Follow on Twitter

A joint op-ed by Public Citizen’s Lisa Gilbert with libertarian Cato Institute’s Mark Calabria was published recently in USA Today.

The unlikely pair – considering Public Citizen’s progressive perspective and Cato’s libertarian stance – call Attorney General Eric Holder to task for the Department of Justice’s timid treatment of criminal banks.

Acknowledging the Credit-Suisse guilty plea that Justice recently obtained, Gilbert and Calabria write, “we certainly applaud the DOJ’s action, a criminal guilty plea from a foreign bank doesn’t erase the many non-prosecutions and deferred prosecutions of the too-big-to-fail banks at the heart of the financial crisis.”

Advocates and activists on the left and right demand action. What can Justice do to start restoring faith in a system that imprisons low-income lawbreakers but allows Wall Street’s worst to walk free?

Gilbert and Calabria offer a next step:

Crimes require the action of individuals. The DOJ has yet to articulate why proceeding with criminal prosecution against individuals would undermine the safety of the institutions at which they work or the broader economy.

We are not advocating criminalizing irresponsible behavior after the fact or abandoning due process protections. We are advocating a justice system that treats all equally, regardless of size or importance to the broader economy.

[…]

Holder wants to be “very, very, very, very clear,” that no bank that commits crimes is too big to jail. To ensure that clarity, we should enhance transparency on the process.

Read the full USA Today op-ed here.

Rick Claypool is the online director for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division.

Sign up to receive a weekly email highlighting the best from Public Citizen’s blogs.

Follow on Twitter

Congress passed – unanimously in the Senate and without debate – and President Obama will sign, H.R. 2019, the “Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act” (named after a 10-year old child who died last year of brain cancer). If the legislation actually did what it touts – to finance pediatric research – it would be a noble bill for a noble cause.

But it is a fig-leaf bill. Its real purpose is to begin dismantling the presidential public financing system, and is very unlikely to produce any revenues for pediatric research.

The bill was originally introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. After Harper was unable to persuade Congress to approve earlier legislation that would have entirely defunded the public financing program, Harper re-worked the bill into what it is known now.

The legislation transfers public funds used to pay for the nominating conventions into the general treasury, then states that those funds may be used for pediatric research, if Congress ever decides to appropriate the funds for that purpose.

This same Congress slashed National Institute of Health (NIH) funding by $1.55 billion, which finances the pediatric research program, in the appropriations bills, and then placed caps on any further spending by NIH. The Kids First Research Act, if ever implemented, would transfer from the presidential public financing system to pediatric research, a pittance of what Congress slashed from the research budget. And even that pittance is not likely to happen. Given current spending caps on governmental agencies, Congress also would have to pass legislation lifting the spending ceiling for the National Institutes of Health to carry through with this appropriation, something that this Congress is very unlikely to do.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.