While it may sound logical to have an economist examining the economic impact of regulatory changes, Steinzor points out that Lutter has made some rather bizarre and disturbing arguments, including that the economic value of each of a child’s IQ points isn’t really all that much, so regulation to prevent lead poisoning ought not be so strict.

Lutter argues in this fascinating policy paper:

Benefits to parents of lower lead levels in their children are much less than federal regulatory agencies’ estimates of benefits, which they compute as the expected discounted gains to children’s lifetime earnings. … I show benefits to parents are between $1,100 and $1,900 per IQ point gained, or roughly one-sixth of the benefits to children estimated by federal agencies. … This analysis suggests lead standards will redistribute resources from parents to their children, because the benefits to parents are less than the costs of the standards.

In other words, the economic benefit to parents of an extra IQ point in their child is not as much as the cost of implementing new regulations that reduce lead in the environment. As a result, concludes Lutter, “The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development should reconsider their lead standards.”

Although it’s not exactly surprising to see the government weighing the costs and benefits of new regulations, the economic valuation to parents of their children’s IQ points would surely, if made public, be quite controversial.

Steinzor notes that less than 24 hours after she asked Sunstein at a meeting whether he would be hiring Lutter, “perhaps by coincidence, AEI had pulled many documents referring to Lutter off its web site, including his biography.”

I respectfully urge you to disclose as much information as you can about these policy advisors and “czars.”  Specifically, I ask that you identify these individuals’ roles and responsibilities, and provide the judgment(s) of your legal advisors as to whether and how these positions are consistent with the Appointments Clause.

Politico’s take here is — shockingly! — a bit misleading and over-wrought. In addition to Feingold’s letter, there’s Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) saying that “you need to have confirmation” for powerful advisers. There’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wants more oversight but avers that the way “czars” are defined in the press is wildly misleading: “I don’t think it’s quite fair to call, for example, David Hayes at the Department of Interior a czar.” Somewhat surprisingly, conservative-leaning Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) dismisses the “czar” panic as “something that some talk show hosts have made a great deal out of.” And there’s an eight-month old letter about “czars” from Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). Politico packages this as evidence of Democrats “joining the czar wars.”

It’s hard to overstate what a fantastic issue this is for Republicans if it’s covered hysterically. The 40 Republican members of the Senate have filibustered or put holds on many of the president’s nominees, including Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel and Tom Perez at the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. They subjected Cass Sunstein to an eight-month series of holds and filibusters which ended only last week — and they continue to include Sunstein in the roll calls of “unaccountable czars.”

Thanks to lazy and sensationalized journalism, Republicans are able to put the breaks on the president’s nominees while complaining, as Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) did yesterday, that President Obama’s appointees are “unaccountable to the American people through their elected representatives.” The fact that Republicans, instead of asking questions, are quietly placing “holds” on qualified nominees who have been submitted to the Senate, goes utterly unmentioned.

Feingold’s letter:

Dear Mr. President:

From the beginning of your administration, you have made an admirable commitment to transparency and open government.  You showed the strength of your commitment by sending a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies within a week of your inauguration, stating: “My administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.”

As you know, there has been much discussion about your decisions to create and assign apparently significant policy-making responsibilities to White House and other executive positions; many of the persons filling these positions have come to be referred to in the media and even within your administration as policy “czars.”  I heard firsthand about this issue on several occasions from my constituents in recent town hall meetings in Wisconsin.

The Constitution gives the Senate the duty to oversee the appointment of Executive officers through the Appointments Clause in Article II, section 2.  The Appointments Clause states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise proved for, and which shall be established by law.”  (Emphasis added.)   This clause is an important part of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, empowering the Senate to weigh in on the appropriateness of significant appointments and assisting in its oversight of the Executive Branch.

As a member of the Senate with the duty to oversee executive appointments and as the Chairman of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee, I respectfully urge you to disclose as much information as you can about these policy advisors and “czars.”  Specifically, I ask that you identify these individuals’ roles and responsibilities, and provide the judgment(s) of your legal advisors as to whether and how these positions are consistent with the Appointments Clause.  I hope that this information will help address some of the concerns that have been raised about new positions in the White House and elsewhere in the Executive Branch, and will inform any hearing that the Subcommittee holds on this topic.

Thank you for considering my views on this important matter.  I very much appreciate your commitment to transparency and open government and look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold

United States Senator

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

“I don’t think you know who these people are,” said Shadegg, ribbing the media for not holding them “accountable.”

But several of the people in Shadegg’s chart were actually confirmed by the Senate. So-called “Science Czar” John Holdren — second row, third from right — was confirmed unanimously as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, way back in March. So-called “Regulatory Czar” Cass Sunstein–fourth row, second from the left — was confirmed as the next administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by a 57-40 vote, just last week. So-called “TARP Czar” Herb Allison and so-called “technology czar” Aneesh Chopra have been confirmed the Senate. Shadegg even lists Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who was confirmed by the Senate a week after Inauguration Day, as the “Intelligence Czar.”

Minutes after Shadegg showed this chart, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) admitted that there were “10 czars who have been confirmed by the Senate.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

The Republican with the most to lose from his “aye” vote? Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), who is reeling from several primary challenges in his deep red state.

As was the case during yesterday’s cloture vote, Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and James Webb (D-Va.) voted against Sunstein. Though he supported cloture for the Harvard law professor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted “no” on Sunstein’s confirmation. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) presided over the vote.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck occasionally cut to the Senate floor and warned his audience that it was “in danger” if Sunstein was confirmed.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

The only other senator using time to speak on Sunstein’s nomination was Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who stuck to a character sketch of her old law school teacher, who looked like a “boy in man’s clothes” when she met him at the University of Chicago. OIRA, said Klobuchar, “is a very difficult agency, and no one is quite sure what it does.” Lieberman thanked her and continued to talk about Sunstein’s endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

At 4:45pm, the Senate will proceed to vote in relation to the following:

- Final passage of the Travel Promotion Act (S. 1023, as amended)

- The motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Cass Sunstein to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

Boren joined others in criticizing the growing trend to name czars to lead efforts in specific areas. … He also singled out Cass Sunstein, who was picked by Obama to be the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.

Boren cited Sunstein’s reported views on animal rights, adding they are out of step with those of Oklahomans.

“I don’t believe he should be appointed to anything,’’ Boren said.

Myers does a quick fact-check: “With his nomination sent to the Senate in April, Sunstein does not appear to fall in the same category as a czar.” That’s right. A member of Congress was unaware that Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is a Senate-confirmed position.