The federal government's reported figures for jobs "created or saved" by the "stimulus" bill (formally the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or "ARRA") are now known to be wrong. The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which oversees these figures, apparently has decided not to correct them.
A scandal has erupted over the federal government's reporting of the number of jobs created or saved by the "stimulus" bill (formally the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).
This scandal would have been avoided if the government had complied with the Information Quality Act.
Washington Post environmental reporter Juliet Eilperin has a Page One story about Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's decision to ratify the Bush Administration's decision in December 2008 to delist the gray wolf as an endangered species in parts of the West.
His decision is controversial. Those who support it (including of course Secretary Salazar) say it was based on science. Those who oppose it say the Bush Administration's decision was based on politics and that Salazar should have changed it to reflect the policy views of the Obama Administration. One thing is clear: it is difficult to discern where science ends and policy begins with respect to decisions made under the Endangered Species Act.
Regulation is widely understood as a tax on the activity or person being regulated. Where these activities repair genuine market failures, benefits from regulation may result. If there are benefits from, say, automobile safety regulation, one would expect the beneficiaries to be persons who otherwise would have been killed or injured at the pre-regulatory safety level.
But what about the costs of regulation? Who bears them? More...
In June, the ad hoc National Academy of Sciences committee empaneled to review OMB's proposed risk assessment guidance asked several affected federal agencies to provide comments.
Neutral Source has copies of these comments in our Library.
The Associated Pressreported
on May 18 that a new study in the peer reviewed journal Animal
Conservation has found "for a second time" that "the
Preble's
meadow jumping mouse is distinct
from other types of mice and deserves federal protection." The first
half of this statement is arguably scientific, but the second
half is policy. The AP's headline writer confuses
these distinct functions by implying that it is the role of scientists
to make legal determinations about endangered species: "Scientists:
Controversial Mouse Deserves Federal Protection". More...
A recent news report highlights why high quality information is essential for the public to understand ecosystem issues, and for government officials to make informed decisions. More...
