Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America look through a rough and often disturbing 2017 to find three things they’re each thankful for in politics and beyond this year. From some important accomplishments to the arrival of an important new figure in Washington to the bravery of people in different walks of life, Jim and Greg find some silver linings in our toxic political culture. Happy Thanksgiving! There will be no podcast on Thursday. Please join us again on Friday.
Limited government advocates and property rights champions are cheering Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt for publicly announcing he will scrap the tactic known as “sue and settle” for as long as he is in office.
“We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress,” Pruitt said in a statement.
So what is “sue and settle?” In short, it’s a way that politicians and bureaucrats shift policy by pretending to be in a legal fight with a political ally and altering a specific rule in order to supposedly avoid a lawsuit.
Patrick Hedger, manager of the Regulatory Action Center at the FreedomWorks Foundation, offers a more detailed description of how this political and legal charade plays out.
“(Government) agencies will sometimes collude with private actors, such as third party non-governmental organizations, non-profits, and other activist organizations in order to facilitate an expedited rule-making process that goes outside the normal rule-making,” said Hedger.
“There will be a faux lawsuit and instead of taking that suit to court, they will settle it out of court, generally behind closed doors, in a process known as a consent decree. That consent decree will force the agency to act in a way that’s normally a lot faster and more aggressive than a normal federal rule-making process,” said Hedger.
Hedger says this bureaucratic maneuver then provides political cover for an administration that wanted to change the rule all along.
“This is a way for agencies to avoid political accountability for controversial decisions. Usually, we’ve seen very expensive and aggressive regulations being passed, particularly environmental regulations. This is a way for agencies like the EPA, in the past, to say, ‘We had our hands tied by this lawsuit,’ even though this was their ultimate political goal,” said Hedger.
Hedger is quick to add that no party is innocent when it comes to using “sue and settle” but some administrations have utilized it much more than others.
“This has basically been a bipartisan practice but it accelerated greatly during the Obama administration,” said Hedger.
He also offered some examples of the more onerous rules established through “sue and settle,” including the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule.
“It basically forces power plants to put in expensive new infrastructure to achieve extremely stringent emissions standards. That’s estimated to cost almost $10 billion annually. There were Clean Water Act rules that applied to the Chesapeake Bay. Those are estimated to cost anywhere from $18-20 billion per year. All of these were achieved through ‘sue and settle’ litigation,” said Hedger.
Hedger is thrilled that Pruitt declared an end to a practice that subverts the normal rule-making process.
“This is a process that has been used by both Republican and Democratic administrations. This just shows that the Trump administration is very much still committed to getting back to regular order and the proper way of doing things.
“Instead of using this political end around to achieve its own goals, the Trump administration is just trying to bring the government back in line with the Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act, which is supposed to govern regulations,” said Hedger.
Scrapping “sue and settle” is just one of several moves from Pruitt’s EPA that is drawing high praise from limit government activists. Earlier this month, Pruitt announced what many see as the beginning of the end of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which required substantial decreases in carbon emissions and was considered the death blow to the coal industry.
Earlier this year, Pruitt also started the rollback of the Waters of the United States rule, or WOTUS. That update changed the definition of navigable waterway from one you could actually navigate with a boat and was usually connected to a larger body of water to virtually and standing water in a drainage ditch or even a puddle.
Hedger likes Pruitt’s policies but likes his fidelity to his oath even more.
“I think Administrator Pruitt is doing a phenomenal job of, first and foremost, putting the Constitution first,” said Hedger. “There is a way to achieve a clean environment while also adhering to the rule of law and I think that’s the structure that we’re seeing from Pruitt’s EPA.”
But while Pruitt is making a lot of big moves, Hedger says the next EPA boss could easily reverse it all. He says lawmakers need to get involved.
“This does, at some level, have to fall back on Congress to stop passing these vague laws. Particularly in the case of ‘sue and settle,’ there are parts of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act that encourage that encourage this type of practice. So Congress should go in and clarify that they never intended for this ‘sue and settle’ and consent decree practice to happen,” said Hedger.
Hedger says Pruitt’s moves on process and on existing rules are a breath of fresh air to property and business owners. However, he says much more can be done to relieve the regulatory burden on American families and businesses.
“Right now, there’s so much focus on tax reform, which is good, but if you look at the estimates of the economic burden of federal regulation versus the economic burden of taxes, they estimate that the regulatory burden in this country approaches two trillion dollars per year, which is more than is collected in individual and corporate income taxes,” said Hedger.
Five Senate Democrats are now publicly endorsing a government-run, single-payer health care system in a sign the party is quickly rallying to that goal, however the idea promises to be a financial and regulatory nightmare that should compel Republicans to revisit the issue and get it right before the 2018 elections.
On Tuesday, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, announced he would support the “Medicare for All” legislation sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont.
“It’s time to simplify health care and lower patients’ costs, and embrace Medicare for All,” said Merkley, who is now the fifth Senate Democrat to join the cause publicly. In addition to Sanders, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., are all co-sponsoring the bill.
In addition, roughly half the House Democrats are on board with the idea.
Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Robert Moffit says the Democrats are making their moves now because Republicans failed to get their health care reforms passed in the Senate.
“The immediate reason is the abject failure of Senate Republicans – and it’s the Senate’s fault here – to enact a health care reform bill to repeal and at least partially replace Obamacare,” said Moffit.
“It has created a major health policy vacuum, so the liberals in Congress and elsewhere are ready to fill it, and they’re preparing now for a total government takeover of health care, which is a single-payer system,” said Moffit.
But while touting “Medicare for All” and health care as a right, Moffit says Americans should not miss what is really at stake here.
“What they are proposing is nothing short of a government monopoly over the financing and the delivery of health care,” said Moffit. “Ultimately what this means is that politicians will be in direct charge of health policy.”
He says Democrats in 2017 are making the exact opposite promise that President Obama made in 2009 and 2010, only this time they would actually keep it.
“When Obama promised he would not take away your plan, that turned out to be false, especially if you were in the individual market. Here the Democrats in the Senate – Warren, Sanders, Sen. Merkley, John Conyers in the House – they are telling you they are going to take away your health plan,” said Moffit.
With Medicare already in deep debt and staring at $33-44 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, Moffit says adding the rest of the nation to the program would require a major wallop to the wallets of taxpayers.
He says California is an important test case. The state senate there has approved a single-payer plan that would result in a a spending hike of anywhere from 53-110 percent.
“Frankly, it’s whack job economics. The Senate legislative analysts themselves say that this will require a 15 percent payroll tax,” said Moffit.
Moffit also took aim at Merkley’s assertion that having Medicare for everyone would somehow simplify the health care system. He says the story of Medicare shows exactly the opposite.
“I think that Merkley is living in an alternative universe. Anyone who has had to deal with Medicare, members of the medical profession are very familiar with it. Medicare today is governed by tens of thousands of pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines and medical paperwork is eating up more and more of the time and energy and effort of physicians,” said Moffit.
“If you think that Medicare is a model of administrative efficiency or that Medicare is somehow simple, you’ve got to have rocks in your head. you’re living on another planet. Medicare is the Godzilla of government regulation,” said Moffit.
“It imposes enormous administrative costs on doctors, hospitals, clinics, and home health agencies, who have to bear the real costs of complying with Medicare’s regulatory systems,” said Moffit.
Moffit says this is also another clear signal of how far Democrats have moved to the left.
“They’re consumed by identity politics. They’re eager to impose political correctness as part of an aggressive, counter-cultural agenda. Now their economic agenda boils down to heavier taxation, higher spending, larger government programs, and even greater government control over our personal lives. Frankly, if they want to have that debate, I’m ready to go,” said Moffit.
He says the key to foiling a complete government takeover of health care is for Republicans to roll up their sleeves and do health care legislation right this time. He says failure is not an option.
“This is not an optional matter. The individual market in the United States is in crisis. They have no options here. It’s not a question of what the hell they want to do, pardon me. They have got to do their job. If they don’t do their job, millions of Americans get hurt, especially the millions of middle class Americans who today do not get any subsidies whatsoever,” said Moffit.
“Congress has got to get its act together. They have no choice,” he added.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America have good news from Wall Street: stocks are soaring, regardless of the chaos in Washington. Transcripts of President Trump’s January phone calls to the leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked to the press this week, and Jim and Greg react both to Trump’s comments and the blatant leaking and publishing of classified information. And they have little sympathy for health insurance companies who are forced to bail on the Obamacare exchanges after losing huge amounts of money, but the vanishing coverage is leaving many Americans in a terrible position while Congress accomplishes nothing.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America start with an appetizer by cheering the U.S. Navy’s use of a new laser weapon meant to target small watercraft and drones. They also praise the Trump administration for its success in halting hundreds of regulations that would stifle job growth and business expansion. They also address the tragic news that Arizona Sen. John McCain is diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, and they express disgust at the tasteless and nasty reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. And they sigh over President Trump griping to the media about his frustrations over Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russia investigation.
David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud President Trump for aggressively rolling back burdensome federal regulations. They also wince at new Census Bureau data showing more Americans aged 18-34 live with their parents than with a spouse, a major shift from 40 years ago. And they brace themselves for Barack Obama’s first public appearance since Inauguration Day and discuss how active Obama is likely to be in policy debates.
The House Republican health care bill cleared another hurdle on Thursday, but one of the most fiscally conservative GOP lawmakers says the bill will never pass unless it acts to immediately reduce the cost of coverage and includes repeal of Obamacare’s burdensome regulations.
The House Budget Committee approved the American Health Care Act, 19-17. Three Republicans voted against it, including Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va.
“The budget committee went forward with it, but some of the guys are getting promises that we’re going to have some fixes and some fairly significant fixes going forward,” said Brat, who believes the Republicans are heading toward disaster on their present course, largely because they don’t address health care costs effectively.
“Both conservative and liberal think tanks and health experts agreed that the current House bill maintains the current structure of Obamacare,” said Brat. “You keep the individual exchanges. You keep the individual market and you keep the insurance regulations, so I don’t know how anyone expects the price of health care to go down.”
And without lower costs, Brat says Republicans are walking into a political buzz saw with no upside.
“That’s the big thing we have to fix and we all want Trump to be successful. For him to be successful, we have to make those changes or in a few years we’ll be in another death spiral,” said Brat. “It’s fairly simple. Either you lower the price of this thing so people can afford it or else you’re going to pay the price politically.”
He says the key to driving costs down is to address insurance regulations, a priority President Trump has been pushing for months.
“Our leadership bill has prices going down 10 percent after three years. So we’ve got price increases coming. We’ve got to make sure that does not happen. The biggest way you can prevent that is to get at the insurance regulations,” said Brat.
There’s also the issue of choosing what’s in a plan. For example, Brat notes that because of the many requirements Obamacare mandates in every approved health plan, it’s impossible for young, healthy people to buy low-cost, high-deductible catastrophic plans.
GOP leaders currently argue that market-based reforms would be included in separate legislation from the first bill which deals mainly with taxation and mandates. That’s the third phase of replacing Obamacare. They also say regulatory repeal is not in the bill because Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price can roll those back unilaterally. That is phase two.
Brat is not impressed.
“The problem there is it’s not permanent. We’ll have this kind of bumper pool every four years, when you switch administrations you’ll change health care for the whole country. We want that that bucket number two, that Price is going to take care of, to be put into the bill itself,” said Brat.
He says allowing greater competition for coverage and including regulatory reform in the bill could salvage the legislation for many conservatives.
“I think if leadership goes forward with that and pushes it over to the Senate, that’ll get a lot of people to ‘yes.’ That could be the sweet spot,” said Brat.
How will this play out in the coming weeks? Brat says Trump is the key.
“I don’t think we’re even close to having the votes, so Trump will come in and negotiate and put his foot down on a system that he wants. He wants to increase competition across state lines and to reduce the costs for everybody so it’s affordable. If we can get it done in a month or two, it can be signed, sealed and delivered if we can zap these insurance regulations,” said Brat.
He says those components would also allow Republicans, who ran on repealing and replacing Obamacare, to make good on their promises to the American people.
“We can put [a bill] together brick by brick but the key is you’ve got to start out with the glue. Repeal, that was the promise. Then move forward from that and build a scaffolding up from there,” said Brat.
“You want to start with free markets and then add a safety net. You don’t want to start with socialism and then promise free markets later. That never happens,” said Brat.
So why haven’t these ideas been in the bill from the start? Brat suspects quite a few GOP senators are looking to dodge controversial votes.
“The Senate has become kind of a high noon tea society over there. They’re not taking tough votes. They don’t want this bill to come over in the first place. I think they’re using that as a way to duck. Even our side uses that as a way to duck from pushing through what we have to get through,” said Brat.
Brat also rejects the leadership’s argument that market reforms and regulatory repeal can’t be included in a reconciliation process. He says that’s just not true. He says the Senate can simply vote to determine if a provision is tax or budget-related.
He says getting this major overhaul done and done right is a matter of political will, and adds that not is the time to demonstrate that will.
“Let’s roll the TV cameras in there. Let’s put that live in front of the American people so they can see the process of their own government at work for them, and I think we’ll have a big win,” said Brat.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and David French of National Review discuss President Trump’s orders seeking to reduce federal regulations. They also say Trump is on the right track with his refugee policy but did not implement it well, and they unload on the hysterical left-wing reaction to the policy. And they practice their shocked faces as Iran defies the United Nations and tests a ballistic missile – the ones that carry nuclear warheads.
President-Elect Donald Trump is vowing to unleash American energy and begin scrapping burdensome regulations on his very first day in office, announcements welcomed by the energy industry, although they still have other goals they want to see the new administration pursue.
In a short video, Trump outlined several directives he will issue on his first day in office on issues ranging from trade and immigration to national security and ethics reform. However, promoting domestic energy and rolling back regulations were right near the top of the list.
“I will cancel job killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high paying jobs,” said Trump in the video.
“On regulation, I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated,” said Trump.
The energy industry is hopeful that the next four years will offer it a more hospitable environment than what it received during the Obama administration.
“We’re certainly encouraged by the fact that the president-elect understands that one of the key drivers to a strong economy is energy security,” said American Petroleum Downstream Group Director Frank Macchiarola.
Macchiarola believes Trump understands the need to champion domestic energy production and is fully confident the American people are on board.
“Survey after survey tells us that the American public is concerned about economic growth and believes that we need to be energy secure,” he said, but notes that Obama has left a pretty complicated knot for the new president to untangle on energy regulation.
“I think what happened over the course of the Obama administration is that there was a lot of consolidated power in the administration. I think with the division in Congress and the stalemate between both parties in the House and Senate, I think the administration took that opportunity to consolidate it’s power through a stronger regulatory agenda,” said Macchiarola.
He says those regulations had a clear impact on the energy industry.
“We have 145 current regulations that directly impact the oil and natural gas sector, whether it’s issues related to public land and access or issues related to the downstream or issues related to air or water or an issue like the Renewable Fuel standard. It’s a broad spectrum,” said Macchiarola.
Macchiarola and his allies want the Trump administration to go over every single one of those regulations and provide as much relief as possible.
“What we really would like to do is to have the new administration, with a fresh set of eyes, take a look at this regulatory onslaught that we’ve seen. And, again, consistent with their message and principles that they stated during the campaign about the need for less burdensome regulations here in Washington, free up capital to be invested in the private sector and the nee for secure U.S. domestic energy production,” said Macchiarola.
One of the policies Macchiarola is most concerned about is the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, and the increasing amount of ethanol being required in our fuel. He says the RFS was created last decade to help boost energy independence at a time when the U.S. was importing vast amounts of energy.
He says the policy no longer fits the reality.
“What they didn’t know is that we would have an American energy renaissance. Because of the shale revolution here in the United States and the energy renaissance, we’re now producing greater and greater amounts of oil and natural gas. We’re the world’s leading producer of oil and natural gas,” said Macchiarola.
“At the same time, demand for energy has essentially flat-lined. So what you’ve seen is America become more energy secure over that time,” he added.
Macchiarola says addressing the RFS is critical now because the amount of ethanol about to be required in gasoline is incompatible with the vast majority of American vehicles.
“(It) creates an issue because it potentially adds cost to the consumer both through food and fuel. And these higher ethanol blends above E10 are incompatible with the cars we have on the road today. So the bottom line is the RFS is a mess, and it really needs to be fixed,” said Macchiarola.
Bipartisan legislation to address the Renewable Fuel Standard exists in the House of Representative but has not yet been considered.
