announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we have dan bosch here to

talk about the regulations of the new administration. you for joining us, sir. guest: thank you for having me. host: remind people particularly about the view you take and how you view these regulations. guest: i think i can actually talk about the think tank dedicated to free market vote. when we do regulation, we like to look at -- look at it through the lens of how it imposes upon the economy and how agencies do a better job of making sure these are efficient, if they need to impose those laws. host: a four-part that your organization just put out on the topic of regulation and it is probably something that not everybody dives into everyday. what he think it is a board for people to understand the conduct of this administration? guest: it really gives a sense of the economic impact being had and it -- being handed down by the administration. in the report, we looked at the

first chair of the wyden administration and found they imposed $201 billion of economic impositions. the biden administration is by far the biggest first year of an administration in that timeframe. when you consider the fact that typically what happens during the first chair of administration is that they are laying the groundwork for more substantive rule to come in the future, i think is a clear indication of the future where we are headed that there will be more economic costs coming. host: you mentioned the $201 billion number found in your report. you also mention a number of executive orders being signed and the topics of vehicle admissions and covid-19 safety measures. can you elaborate on what those things? guest: the vehicle admissions rule is probably about 90% of the net total. that is probably about $180 billion. that sets miles per gallon

standards per year from 2023 to 2026. most people are familiar with the mandate from osha on employers of more than 100 employees to either vaccinate or provide testing for them. that was about $4 billion. that one was recently swept down by the supreme court. host: as far as the paperwork involved, talk a little bit about that. you talk about financial facts, but what does this paperwork have to do with it overall? guest: paperwork is put a simple. time is money. when you look at the amount of paperwork hours that were issued last year, 131 million hours of paperwork were added. if you figure out that hourly cost for each person that is doing that work, there is significant economic costs involving that. host: before we go too far, as far as the regulation is concerned, this is the technical

definition. i will ask you to expand on it. it says the regulation is a border commission with the force and effect of law. congress and other authorities can sometimes require agencies to issue regulation. they had the discretion to do so. many passed by congress give them the chance to decide how best ample metals laws. the regulations specify the -- is that me as far as folks like you tracking these things, not only for its economic impact, but overall impact on america? guest: i think what it means is that ultimately, if the look at where these come from. as you mentioned, congress does give agencies the permission to

do certain things. there's also authority decades ago that was given to agencies. what we're saying now is that with congress doing less in terms of actual legislating, agencies are being forced to try to address the issues that are topical today and they are trying to shoehorn in these regulations into authorities that are decades old that were not actually designed to allow these regulations to be well implement it. i think the impact that folks feel is that you end up with a sufficient regulation as a result of it. one unique thing about regulation is that it does take time for these things to actually be dealt in the future. is not like in agency issues a roll today and your viewers will feel the impact tomorrow. it is typically years down the road, like higher prices of goods and services. host: give us an example, say on the previous administration on that front.

guest: i think the most per gallon rule that i mentioned is something the biden administration put out, that affects 2023 to 2026. obviously, the vehicles are not out yet. if your viewers were to go purchase a vehicle over that timeframe, my fine costs are low bit higher than they are expecting to pay. host: our guest is with us from the american action forum, talking about the topic of regulation. if you want to ask him questions about the findings and reports, you can call (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8000 --(202) 748-8002 for independents. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. guest: the philosophy is that

there are number of things that need to be addressed, eggs from the covered pandemic to climate change, to certain labor issues. they believe that the government can do that job by issuing regulations to accomplish that. their approach is to use the existing authority that we have under law to try to issue solutions to these problems and then to take those solutions and provide -- i guess the best way to put it is to use the government to provide the best solution possible that they are able to do. often what happens, and i sort of mentioned this earlier, the efficiency of regulation is not there compared to some of the different policy approaches that they could use. what you end up with is inefficient, costly regulation

that really does not actually address the problem at the end of the day. host: as far as the process itself, just for folks to understand at home, what is the process of putting a regulation into effect? guest: i think that is part of why relation is so inefficient and ineffective. what happens is the agency has to propose the rule. they will publish that and allow the public to comment on it. then, they have to take those comments and reconsider the rule that the issued in light of those comments, address those comments and a final rule. that process can take years because there is also, even before rule is approach, there is a lot of economic that has be done to figure out if we are even coming close to regulating this in the right way. it is a very time-consuming process. one thing to keep in mind, and

something we just all with the supreme court recently striking down the osha vaccine mandate, is that it can be challenged in court. even if a rule is issued, it can be several years before it actually goes into effect and clears the court and is felt by folks. host: the story just took place yesterday. it is about the biden administration saying that there will be mercury pollution rules reinstated that were weakened under trump. guest: it is a good illustration of another unique feature of regulatory possible -- regulatory legislation. the biden administration is proposing to rollback a trump rule. it is a problem for a certainty standpoint for businesses and everybody, really.

i think everybody should be concerned about that. because these things are not being done through congress, they are sort of help to the whims of whoever is in the white house at the time. host: the report that is available online, there are several charts to take a look at it. there is a total cost by month. we are showing folks the chart, but it is showing a spike in month 11 of mr. biden's first european can you describe that and the impact? guest: that is the motor vehicle ruled dimension. that is $180 billion. $201 billion is showing that that is 90% of it. we did not expect that rule to come out in the first year. usually the first year is when the administration is laying the groundwork for more substantive relate run. it was sort of a surprise to see that come out when it did.

we will probably -- it will probably be one of the most excessive regulations will see during his entire time and it is by far the most expensive individual rule that we have tracked going all the way back to 2005. host: basic flatline in the trump administration, the obama ministration -- administration showing a late a small spike. guest: like i say, it is the ramping up sort of phase. it was unique with the biden administration that they put out this role. they published it on the last day of 2021. within the last few weeks of the first year in office, they put this rule out. host: here is evan in maryland, and independent line. you are on with our guest, stan bosch -- dan bosch. caller: i just went to make a quick comment and i'm kind of disappointed in this administration for seeming to

push the effort of emissions control onto citizens we don't seem to have any sort of strict admissions -- emissions when it comes to shipping low-end consumer goods from china on ships with bunker oil. is that seem appropriate -- does that seem appropriate? guest: i think the problem with regulating these emissions is that they have to be done as a sort of one-off basis. to be done by industry, by source. as i mentioned earlier, it takes forever to regulate all the things you need to regulate, then it an efficient way to do it. something that would be better something that prices carbon into the market, something like a carbon tax or some other kind of pricing mechanism would be better and more evenly distribute the cost. i realize you mentioned things

related to what china might be doing. it is to that she is difficult for the u.s. government to regulate anything that has to do with what another country might be doing. host: from christian in organ, democrat line, good morning. you are next. caller: the morning. dan bosch, correct? guest: yes. caller: i have a couple questions for you. i am looking at the tag at the bottom, american action forum. out of curiosity, i'm not very sure about the american action forum. i'm assuming they pay your salary, is that correct? guest: yes, i am an employee there. caller: that's right. in regards to regulation, hello? there is a reason the epa has set standards for drinking water, pollution that gets

pumped out in the sky, right? it is regulated, right? guest: sure. caller: wouldn't that be a problem? there is a reason they have relations, right? guest: i'm not advocating for getting rid of regulations, especially like the safety of drinking water. the only point that i'm trying to raise through this research and other research that we do here is that it is a trade-off. we need to consider the economic impacts the risks to health and public safety. it is all about finding the right balance to have regulations. it is not that all regulations are bad or things like that, it is just that we need to find the right balance. host: how is that balance achieved and what is it look like? guest: specifically when indices -- industries try to find that balance, they look at the cost

indexes and they consider what the benefits will be. that is a fair approach to doing it. but one interesting aspect of it is that since agencies are doing that, they are sort of incentivized to maybe underreport the cost and then they are sort of incentivized to not necessarily inflate benefits, but find as many as possible, even if they are not directly related to the regulation. it is kind of a tricky balance. they try to do the best they can with the resources they have, but it is all about finding that right benefit -- right balance of cost and benefits. host: melissa in iowa, independent line. caller: hi, things for taking my call. i guess i have a really funny regulation question to dan brashear. explain to us why the biden administration put in a

regulation that you can be an illegal alien, kill people, are suppose to be deported for that, and they give them leniency to be able to stay here. that is totally, totally wrong. guest: i appreciate the question. i'm not sure i'm familiar with that specific regulation that they put forward that allows that to happen, but certainly the agencies have to do what they think is best for the country. they are trying to find the right balance of what is an appropriate level of immigration and why it is important for our economy. they need to work on those kinds of issues. host: we have a question of twitter. there were so many regulations strip roi by the previous administration that nothing is safe, from our wallets to our drinking water to our politicians. president biden is trying to bring some security and our lives by controlling the predators the right protects. as far as the previous

administration, is that accurate? guest: he certainly put an emphasis on direct elation, but i don't think it's fair to say that's entirely the case. if you look at their final numbers, they actually invoked for the billion dollars in cost throughout their four years. it's not like they were cutting away everything. they were so regulating as well. host: the second point, as far as mr. biden and the idea of security and protection, the new regulations set that you talk about, what about that prospect? guest: i would just caution folks to think that often people say that we need galatian for this. they think this will be the ideal solution. oftentimes, regulation is not the ideal solution. it could be part of the solution, specifically because people tend to think regulation is a utopian decision and it is really a compromise, like any other policy, about finding the

right balance. host: if not regulation, what other ways could you achieve the same results? guest: congress could step in. one thing they could do to help these agencies is given the authorities they need to regulate things in a better way. a good example is the epa uses the clean air act to regulate climate emissions. it was designed for those kind of things. it is not a sort of one-off industry regulation, whereas a broader authority that might limit the epa to the emissions they are allowed to regulate put some guardrails route how they identify costs and benefits elated to that would be a better solution. host: in massachusetts, democrat line. caller: good morning. i love the fact that you folks have these think tank folks come

on. one thing i do when i see a name come up as i pull up on the internet and look at their funding. our friends there at the american action forum get their money from insurance companies, the american petroleum institute, pharmaceutical companies, quality nursing home care, americans for job security. so, dan, how much of a balance can you offer on regulations when you in fact are paid by big business? thanks for letting me share that. guest: i prescient that. it's a good question. we are a private organization. people are allowed to donate to us if they feel that we reflect the principles that they support and they think we develop a work. for me personally, what funding comes and has no effect on the work i do in the research i do. i get that you can look at an

organization and your own conclusion, but i just caution jumping the gun and thinking that someone is totally biased or unreasonable just based on where they get their funding from. host: we talked about this earlier about the paperwork hours involved, the chart reflected in the report that you put out, with spikes in months six and 10. can you elaborate on? guest: those were couple of the osha mandates that i mentioned earlier, with the covid vaccine. one was for health care workers that went into effect -- or was issued in the summer. the second one was the osha mandate on employers and centers that use medicare funding that required employees be vaccinated. that was all in november. there was a lot of paperwork costs involved in making sure the records on employees are

up-to-date and that kind of thing. host: dan bosch of the american action forum. he is the regulatory policy director. in delaware, independent line. caller: mike, is about biden thing out the -- my comment is about biden king out the solar panels many fractured in india. i think it is totally asinine and they should be stopped. guest: i appreciate that view. i'm not familiar with that. it sounds more like a trade issue, which is a little bit outside of my wheelhouse. i think that you are certainly entitled to your opinion on that. host: from early on, the administration, elaborate on how they approached it. they call it modernization on how they approached it. talk about the memo and how it impacts what they do as far as regulation. guest: this is exciting for me

because it is getting into the weeds of rulemaking. this prescribes how the white house will review regulations. i don't know if a lot of folks know, but for executive agencies, which are specifically cap agencies that we all know, those rules are sent to the white house to be reviewed before they are published. there is an office at the white house that reviews those rules to make sure the analyses have been done correctly and that what the agency is proposing or finalizing actually meets the objectives that the administration wants to achieve. what this memo did is that it discussed shifting how reviews across our cash costs and benefits and how agencies review those. it talks about disadvantaged communities and things like climate change. at the end of the day, what effects they will have

practically is that it will allow agencies to claim even more benefits for the regulations, as opposed to cost. i think the goal of the biden administration in doing that is that the rules will look more beneficial than they may be actually are and that will help them succeed in courts when they are challenged. host: two extent tenant regulations take the legal challenge and order the steps for regular and sting in place? guest: i don't have specifics on that. i note that one of the major rules, those often end up getting challenged, because there is some industry -- the agency has overstepped its bounds or has not considered the cost of the rule vis-a-vis the benefits. we often see these challenges in court. we are seeing with this current supreme court that we have that they seem to have a lot more

interest in the kind of rules that i mentioned. just a couple weeks ago, they block the osha met -- the osha vaccine mandate. they're going to review the definition of water in the united states. they're going to hear a case about the epa wanting to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. i think that is going to be a pretty active area for them. host: california, democrats line. caller: the morning and thinks for taking my call. -- thanks for taking my call. my question to him is whether he understands that regulations are key part to capitalism working? you sign-up, you go and sell an item. people who come have to be protected. that is where regulations are there. when you start talking about reducing regulations, you're talking about not protecting the

people. the other part i want to mention is when urinalysis comes out, you mention people with money. to me, when you goad to those types of questioning, questioning whether there is cause benefits, people do not equate to money. [indiscernible] that doesn't happen anymore. lobbyists will pay our congressman, puts money in his pocket so he will vote in favor of that company and not the people. host: jerome in california. guest: just back to the point i made earlier, i'm certainly saying that relation has a vital role in our society. i don't think anyone wants to be rid of all regulation. regulation has proven to be effective. but i do think a good example is

with the covered mandates. have been trying to figure out what is the right balance, should people be masking all the time, masking when --where other protocols we should be putting in place? in the future, we don't how these things are going to play out. it is important that agencies take a position that they are willing to learn from as they go and adjust the balance of regulation as they need to to more benefit society. i've -- we also need to have a strong economy. host: washington, d.c., democrats line. hello. caller: we want to have a balance with regulation. we are finding that this can be difficult. in the meantime, i'm going to give you a for instance. when there was emissions control in california, they have some very strict rules because they dealt with a lot of smog.

i was in california back in the 70's when they actually had to close down the government buildings because of the smog on a workday. the carmakers, as you know, have agreed to the california rules and did not even when it struck down. the last administration struck those rules down. he also talked about the process, the elongated process for roofing rules. if you don't has tickled her input, then you are ignoring the people who are making the goods and services, and they may have valid points. congress cannot do all of that, all of the research that it takes to get into the details. you have to have a process. maybe you can shorten the stakeholder process, but then does that give them enough time to put in their rules and do what they need to do? you haven't yet explained how you are going to try to achieve that process and give everybody

the input, protect the public, and you have one that is effective and efficient and preserves free enterprise. host: thank you for the call. guest: that's a really good question. he certainly raise a great point. it takes a long time to go through the rulemaking process. that is by design. it is supposed to take a long time. agencies are supposed to be doing the and implementation of the laws congress passes. what has happened is that congress passing fewer laws, the agency has lost direction. they feel like they need to address certain problems to an extent. certainly, they do. they don't have the right tools because they're using authorizations that are decades-old and were designed -- were not designed for the problems they need to be today. i'm still not advocating for getting rid of public input in the rogatory process. i think it is incredibly

valuable and that is probably one of the best features of the rulemaking process. i think what would help agencies is of congress gave them a little bit more specific direction on how they are supposed to do some of these things. host: to that point that is reflected as far as the viewer, this is susie saying that somewhere there is a good argument for congress to be more proactive, but where? guest: i think climate change is certainly a prime example. the fear i have about some of the regulations being issued by this administration around climate change is that people will then shrug and say, ok, we have done all we can do on climate change. if you look at how effective regulations are on reducing emissions because they are going on a one-off industry basis, they are not nearly as effective as a broader solution that could be implement it more immediately. i would point to that as an example of where congress could step in and really help make a difference. host: from nick in virginia,

independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was thinking that reducing some of these regulations on oil and gas industry might be a good tool, as a weapon against russia and their aggressions in the ukraine. i was wondering if you could balance that against the climate, if it is worse, increasing supply of oil and gas in order to drop the price, using that as a sector weapon. that is something they were doing about 18 months ago. i know that russia's economy took a huge hit from that. if we removed some of those regulations, maybe that could be used as an effective weapon gets the ukraine -- or against russia. guest: i'm certainly not a foreign policy expert. i don't know to what extent removing a regulation today would have an immediate impact

on russia's decision with what they're doing in the ukraine and what they're looking to do over the next several months, just because regular often take a while. the impact of removing or adding a regulation takes a while to be felt. maybe it is something the administration is considering. i think if they felt the payoff was worth it, they may consider it it may also be a case that it would do to little impact than when it's necessary. host: from ryan in iowa, independent line. you are a. caller: the question i have is about when you're talking about balancing cost of benefits. do you mean with cost? is it all financial? perhaps you think about humane concerns and what are the criteria for what your costs are? is all based on economic concerns?

guest: not necessarily. sometimes there costs considered by agencies that are not monetized, so sometimes they put a value on lives and safety and that kind of thing, but often what they will do is talk about the obvious benefits that comes from making sure the people are safe or preventing moral hazards from being introduced into the market. agencies certainly try to take those into account. when it comes to benefits as well, they certainly also look at -- one of the reasons why we track cost so closely is that agencies don't often provide a similar estimate in the same qualifiable way of the benefits. that is often because benefits are less based on economics and more based on values. host: one more call. this is dustin from wisconsin. caller: hi. we have lost 850,000 people in america to covid.

you are talking about less regulations around covid. i would like to know what those are and at what point do we need more people debt? -- did -- it'sdead? guest: didn't say less circulation's around covid. one of the unique things is being done is being dictated by local organizations. i'm certainly not advocating for allowing people to be more subject to covid, but a lot of those decisions don't actually fall to the federal government. host: dan bosch with the american action forum. >> the house of representatives debated legislation to name post offices around the country. they return at 8:30 p.m. eastern

to vote on those bills, we'll have live coverage here. late they are week, bills to address u.s. semiconductors, most are made abroad. live coverage of the house when they return here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] >> a new mobile video app from c-span. c-span now. download