From Reuters:

President Barack Obama unexpectedly asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to withdraw a plan to limit smog pollution, handing a big win to business and Republicans who have argued the initiative was a job killer in uncertain times.

So, basically through this move the president has shown two things:

1. He’s as wishy-washy as they claim.
2. Reinforced the Republican narrative that environmental initiatives cost jobs.

Self inflicted. Worse than doing nothing at all.

Also wrong – this won’t cost jobs, quite the opposite. By forcing companies to spend cash that is sitting on the sidelines to comply (and there is a lot of it) such an initiative would be a sort of “forced stimulus” (though admittedly that’s not a good reason to support it).

The problem is, if people haven’t noticed, we’re always in some “crisis” and it’s never a good time to enact environmental regulation – rain or shine.

I have no idea if Obama had good reasoning or not here, but intentional or not, it’s yet another self-inflicted wound (assuming he actually cares about the subject, which who can know with a politician).

President Barack Obama unexpectedly asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to withdraw a plan to limit smog pollution, handing a big win to business and Republicans who have argued the initiative was a job killer in uncertain times.

UPDATE:

Krugman comes to the same conclusion.

UPDATE 2:

The Economist’s “Democracy In America” says:

The charitable interpretation of this is that the new standards would indeed be burdensome for businesses to implement, and if job creation is a top priority at the moment, as well it should be, then it may be wise to revise some previous plans that might indeed hamper that goal.

…

Today’s decision may have been the prudent one, given the costs of unemployment, but I wish Mr Obama—who is unusually adept at explaining complex causal reasoning when he chooses to do so—had done just that rather than tried to hide it in the news cycle.

I’ll give them credit for noting that there’s more nuance here, however they don’t point out the premise that it costs jobs is just plain out wrong. While one can fairly argue whether it’s the government’s job to reallocate private resources and/or if it’s ultimately constructive (personally I don’t think it hurts any more than private modifiers), however money spent on the environment doesn’t go into some “black hole”, never to be seen again. Money spent on the environment goes into hands of others which in theory should act as stimulus.

Like energy, money isn’t “destroyed”, it just changes form.

The parable of the high rise:

There once was a high rise. It had crappy apartments on the bottom, respectable living toward the middle, ritzy condos toward the top, and like many, a penthouse on the roof.

A fire started. Some claimed it started at the bottom and some claimed it started at the top. Certainly it was burning brightest near the top, but all the floors were becoming engulfed and everyone agreed that something must be done.

The people in charge of the fire hoses and the water came from the penthouse. First they tried to put the fire out by shooting all the water at the penthouse and top floors. That seemed to put the major bit out, but still the fire was burning, particularly now in the middle and bottom floors.

So in desperation they shot a good bit of water at all the floors. This seemed to bring the fire under control, and the immediate disaster seemed averted.

Now while the top and penthouse of the building were not burning anymore, flames still occasionally shot out the middle and bottom floors, threatening the entire building.

Then the arguments began.

Those, mostly from the middle, said to spray the bottom and the middle which were still on fire and clearly needed the water. The top was already very wet and at no risk. Still they thought at least just spray the whole building again.

Those at the top argued the best tack was to concentrate the water at the top and the penthouse, since they were the most important (hey, they held all the top HOA positions!) and anyway, the water would drip down and save the rest of the building.

But those that controlled the water, the penthouse, argued that the water was running out, that they would have to save the water and if anywhere the only place that was reasonable to use the water was the penthouse. Besides, it too would drip down, wouldn’t it?

Others from the top and the penthouse argued that they should stop spraying water at all as the supply was getting short and those supplying the water would start to refuse to do so (though in truth the suppliers never threatened to do so).

Still others from the top and the penthouse thought that too much water had been used already and maybe even the sprinklers should be turned off. Because the fire at the top was out, the fire at the bottom would take care of itself (though some of this ilk also seemed to secretly hope the building would burn altogether, and thus could be rebuilt in their vision).

This later group used great rhetoric, and perhaps if one is being honest now, a few fibs, to convince others. Thus many from the bottom and middle, thinking that those at the top must be smart since, well, they were at the top (and also secretly believing that someday they too would be elevated enough to share in the posh digs), agreed and formed a sort of “quorum”.

Thus the water was turned off and the sprinklers shut on all floors.

And so it went for awhile, though the penthouse owners, controlling the hoses and concerned about their abodes, now and then secretly sprayed their units. To be honest, those below nearby, getting just enough to keep the flames at bay didn’t complain too much.

As for the middle and the bottom, most seemingly most remained transfixed by the relative calm at the top and smooth speeches given by those from the penthouse.

Some however realized the foundation was still burning.

Just a little venting here as I’m getting tired of this latest “fashion” in politics:

Personally I’d like to “dope slap” anyone who uses the terms “innovator” or “entrepreneur” in normal conversation. It’s all code for, “I’m selfish, but great, and you’re a lazy worthless asshole”.

Problem is, they need all of us “lazy worthless assholes” to slave over building the their “innovations” and making their “entrepreneurial” endeavors work.

I think we should move all the “innovators” and “entrepreneurs” to their own island and see how fast they starve to death.

PS: “job creator” also should go in the same bin as “innovators” and “entrepreneurs”.

PPS: Obviously in truth I have no problem with people actually “innovating” or being an “entrepreneur” or “job creator”. I just do believe that it really is fashionable terminology for saying “I’m not lazy scum like them”. Or, to put it another way, “I’m Galt and you’re not!”

UPDATE:

I think it’s curious the Tea Party members, most of which fall under the same category of “lazy worthless asshole” as the rest of us, don’t get that when people use the term “innovator” and “entrepreneur” mean them too. I think they believe their unique quality of character (hence of course why they are “Tea Party” members), will unsure they grow up to be Daddy Warbucks too.

The last point highlights something eventually I want to write about – which is the American gambling addiction – we literally would rather set up a society where we have a 1 in 1 million chance of striking it rich, most of which never do and instead lead a life of struggle, in favor of a 1 in 10 million chance of striking it rich, where most of us actually have some guarantee of comfort.

Duh.