“In many cases, these required cost-benefit analyses appear designed to provide political cover for a more stringent regulatory agenda rather than objectively inform policy decisions,” the congressmen wrote. – Daily Caller

By Paul Conner at The Daily Caller

EXCERPTS:

Rep. Andy Harris and Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun presented White House regulatory administrator Cass Sunstein with over half a dozen examples of administration officials using scientific figures that they said “test credibility.”

The letter cites EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s claim before the House energy committee in September that “if we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer” as “baseless and unsupported by science.”

Harris and Broun also accused the EPA of understating costs of regulatory compliance, ignoring health benefits, failing to analyze and communicate uncertainties in their data, and lacking transparency.

FULL ARTICLE

Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•