Dear Greg,

    I think Jorling's remark that the regs were cut because of  "the chilling effect of rising sentiment against regulation" should be closely examined.

    First of all, how did this chilling effect manifest itself to him? Did Jorling decide to cut back the regulations based on his own estimate of the public mood? It seems unlikely that an Assistant Administrator would take that responsibility on himself without consultation with the Administrator and the White House. Especially in light of the fact that the public mood at the time was very much up in arms over the recent revelations of Love Canal!

    Secondly it is well known that Jorling had run-ins with the Council on Wage & Price Stability, and the Council of Economic Advisors regarding their attempts to pressure him to cut back regulations to fight inflation. I think it was Ham Jordan who publically invited him (without naming Jorling) to leave the government if he wasn't willing to sacrifice environmental regulation to fight inflation.

    It therefore seems much more likely to me that "the chilling effect against regulation" came from the White House rather than from Jorling's head despite his denials.


William Sanjour's home page

Free counters provided by Honesty Communications.