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.”

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.

From the Trib:

A low-profile position in the current administration, the job is likely to be a higher-wattage one after Obama takes office this month.

Obama has promised an overhaul to federal regulation, specifically of the U.S. financial markets, and Sunstein’s job description suggests a sweeping agenda.

Sunstein has also been mentioned as a potential Supreme Court pick under Obama, although a position in the administration might reduce the likelihood that he’ll move to the bench.