The Mark UP

Reality Disagrees with Upton’s Policies

On Tuesday, the Washington Times published an Op-Ed by Representative Fred Upton (MI-6-R) that made false claims about the impact of government regulation on job growth and the economic recovery.

In the Op-Ed, Upton cited a recent study by McKinsey & Company‘s business and economics research arm. But Upton badly misrepresented the findings of the study, including cherry-picking one line about bureaucratic efficiency while obscuring the report’s overall conclusions.

In another embarrassing turn for Upton, his Op-Ed was published just days after the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released their yearly analysis of the costs and benefits of regulation which showed that regulations save more money than they cost.

The OMB study highlights the importance of EPA regulations, not just for our health, but for our economy. In fact, between 2000 and 2010, 32 major EPA rules together will yield estimated annual benefits between $82 billion and $551 billion in 2001 dollars, with annual costs in the $23-$29 billion range.[1]

The data clearly shows that environmental protection is a net job creator and helps the economy.

More importantly, when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of EPA regulations, one must keep in mind that these dollar savings represent less people getting sick, fewer missed school and work days, and fewer people dying from pollution-related illnesses.  Instead of understanding this important fact, Upton is working against two EPA Clean Air Act rules that would save 31,000 to 53,000 lives per year.

Upton can choose to make better decisions in the days ahead – or he can continue to use faulty assumptions, debunked talking points, and bad data.  If he continues to make the wrong choices, it will be a tragedy for our health and economy.