Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama [feedly]

----
Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama
// Calculated Risk

By request, here is another update of an earlier post through the May 2016 employment report including all revisions.

NOTE: Several readers have asked if I could add a lag to these graphs (obviously a new President has zero impact on employment for the month they are elected). But that would open a debate on the proper length of the lag, so I'll just stick to the beginning of each term.

Note: We frequently use Presidential terms as time markers - we could use Speaker of the House, or any other marker.

Important: There are many differences between these periods. Overall employment was smaller in the '80s, however the participation rate was increasing in the '80s (younger population and women joining the labor force), and the participation rate is generally declining now.  But these graphs give an overview of employment changes.

First, here is a table for private sector jobs. The top two private sector terms were both under President Clinton.  Reagan's 2nd term saw about the same job growth as during Carter's term.  Note: There was a severe recession at the beginning of Reagan's first term (when Volcker raised rates to slow inflation) and a recession near the end of Carter's term (gas prices increased sharply and there was an oil embargo).

TermPrivate Sector
Jobs Added (000s)Carter9,041Reagan 15,360Reagan 29,357GHW Bush1,510Clinton 110,884Clinton 210,082GW Bush 1-811GW Bush 2415Obama 11,921Obama 28,385¹¹40 months into 2nd term: 10,062 pace.
The first graph shows the change in private sector payroll jobs from when each president took office until the end of their term(s). Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush only served one term, and President Obama is in the fourth year of his second term.

Mr. G.W. Bush (red) took office following the bursting of the stock market bubble, and left during the bursting of the housing bubble. Mr. Obama (blue) took office during the financial crisis and great recession. There was also a significant recession in the early '80s right after Mr. Reagan (yellow) took office.

There was a recession towards the end of President G.H.W. Bush (purple) term, and Mr Clinton (light blue) served for eight years without a recession.

 Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph is for private employment only.

The employment recovery during Mr. G.W. Bush's (red) first term was sluggish, and private employment was down 811,000 jobs at the end of his first term.   At the end of Mr. Bush's second term, private employment was collapsing, and there were net 396,000 private sector jobs lost during Mr. Bush's two terms. 

Private sector employment increased slightly under President G.H.W. Bush (purple), with 1,510,000 private sector jobs added.

Private sector employment increased by 20,966,000 under President Clinton (light blue), by 14,717,000 under President Reagan (yellow), and 9,041,000 under President Carter (dashed green).

There were only 1,921,000 more private sector jobs at the end of Mr. Obama's first term.  Forty months into Mr. Obama's second term, there are now 10,306,000 more private sector jobs than when he initially took office.

 A big difference between the presidencies has been public sector employment.  Note the bumps in public sector employment due to the decennial Census in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. 

The public sector grew during Mr. Carter's term (up 1,304,000), during Mr. Reagan's terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush's term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton's terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush's terms (up 1,744,000 jobs).

However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama took office (down 503,000 jobs). This has been a significant drag on overall employment.

And a table for public sector jobs. Public sector jobs declined the most during Obama's first term, and increased the most during Reagan's 2nd term.

TermPublic Sector
Jobs Added (000s)Carter1,304Reagan 1-24Reagan 21,438GHW Bush1,127Clinton 1692Clinton 21,242GW Bush 1900GW Bush 2844Obama 1-708Obama 2205¹¹40 months into 2nd term, 246 pace
Looking forward, I expect the economy to continue to expand through 2016 (at least), so I don't expect a sharp decline in private employment as happened at the end of Mr. Bush's 2nd term (In 2005 and 2006 I was warning of a coming down turn due to the bursting of the housing bubble - and I predicted a recession in 2007).

For the public sector, the cutbacks are clearly over.  Right now I'm expecting some increase in public employment during the remainder of Obama's 2nd term, but nothing like what happened during Reagan's second term.

Below is a table of the top three presidential terms for private job creation (they also happen to be the three best terms for total non-farm job creation).

Clinton's two terms were the best for both private and total non-farm job creation, followed by Reagan's 2nd term.

Currently Obama's 2nd term is on pace to be the 3rd best ever for private job creation.  However, with very few public sector jobs added, Obama's 2nd term is only on pace to be the fourth best for total job creation.

Note: Only 205 thousand public sector jobs have been added during the first forty months of Obama's 2nd term (following a record loss of 708 thousand public sector jobs during Obama's 1st term).  This is about 15% of the public sector jobs added during Reagan's 2nd term!

Top Employment Gains per Presidential Terms (000s)RankTermPrivatePublic Total Non-Farm1Clinton 110,88469211,5762Clinton 210,0821,24211,3123Reagan 29,3571,43810,795  Obama 2¹8,3852058,590  Pace²10,06224610,308¹40 Months into 2nd Term
²Current Pace for Obama's 2nd Term
The last table shows the jobs needed per month for Obama's 2nd term to be in the top three presidential terms. Right now it looks like Obama's 2nd term will be in the top 3 for private employment, but not for total employment.

Average Jobs needed per month (000s)
for remainder of Obama's 2nd Termto RankPrivateTotal#1312373#2212342#3122276
----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

explain that to me again, Sam

Here is a link from Sam Webb's blog objecting to my support for Bernie Sanders. He is not alone in these thoughts. But I am not persuaded.

Here is my response to this article, posted mostly as it is previously on Facebook.

Sam is one of my best friends. I have respected and admired his careful and generally sober thinking for many years. Yet I fail to understand his entire line of reasoning on Sanders. 

First it implies Bernie Sanders is not focused on the defeat of Trump. That's a false statement I feel there is no need to refute. And it has served, in more than one article, as a cover for damning Sanders entire campaign with faint praise. 

Second, it implies that the main thrust of Sanders' campaign has been splitting the "anti-Right struggle". False again. The campaign serves instead, to make that struggle mean something besides hot air to working families. 

Third, it implies that that the "well articulated" anti-right campaign should just shut up for now about the class issues related to austerity, #BlackLivesMatter, Fergusons, corporate domination of political institutions, and the absence of a goddamn raise in 40 goddamn years for the median worker, etc. Maybe we should mosey on another 40 defeating the right without a raise. To hell with that! 

Fourth, it suggests that sectarian "anyone-but-Hillary" forces -- half of whom are Republican operatives, IMO -- are actually being directed by Bernie -- a charge he has repeatedly renounced. Also false. 

Fifth It implies Bernie is on the verge of doing a Nader and effectively electing Trump -- another charge Sanders has repeatedly renounced. 

Sixth, it implies that the composition of Bernie's campaign is too narrow among African Americans to support, Really? And thus the composition of Hillary's campaign trumps (no pun intended) all these "too soon in the great strategic struggle to mention class questions" issues and truths Bernie has raised??? The composition of his campaign has steadily improved as people found out more about him -- he comes from a rural state and was virtually unknown outside Vermont and northern New England until last year. 

Seventh -- not in this article-- but in others, the surge in California and the west is dismissed as too late to do anything but increase tension at the convention. Message to socialists and progressives: Run, but don't run to win. Campaign, but not to the limit. This argument refutes itself and more than anything reflects the alienation and marginalization of so much of the Left from real electoral politics, or even an NLRB election campaign.

I reject all these implications. But most of all I question the concept that there is the slightest meaning to an "anti-right" campaign that does not address the class questions of inequality, racism, austerity, peace, and the excessive billionaire-too-big-to-fail-corporate power. I can't imagine what such a campaign. would consist of. It would be to the right of Hillary's current positions -- both her own original positions, and not a few others that have been taken BECAUSE of the Sanders campaign surge. A campaign against Trump that does not raise these questions will, IMO, have not the slightest effect on the forces moving in a fascist direction in this country. Even if he is defeated, another, and another, and another will rise from the wastes spreading in this economy and political paralysis. Such a campaign will have the slimmest of coattails and is highly unlikely to reverse the stalemate in congress. If anyone thinks that African-American, Latino, or women voters supporting Hillary Clinton will tolerate continued stalemate on these vital, life and death matters, they should head immediately to Colorado and stay stoned so the consequences won't be so horrifying. 

What should Bernie do after endorsing Hillary (he has promised to do that if she is the candidate) -- still shut up about the "class" questions? It would be a campaign with demands too shallow to actively enroll the 8 million votes, not to mention the huge mobilized crowds Sanders has drawn across the country, needed to truly roll back the R catastrophe. 

A Sanders-less Clinton campaign would -- this is my worst fear -- be just like the speech she gave in San Diego on Foreign Policy and national security --- virtually no substantive policy vision, but loads of rhetoric exposing Trump's personal unfitness for ANY political office. Gail Collins thought it was HRC's finest hour. To me, it just reinforced the appearance of cold war style tendencies and an "I can pull the trigger" attitude, which, IMO, is her WEAKNESS, not her STRENGTH. Hillary's strength actually IS policy expertise. She is reported to be among the most astute and competent, evidence-based policy wonks in the world. 

I am sure if Bernie loses in California on Tuesday, all who admire the line in Sam's arguments will heave a huge sigh of relief. Personally, I am profoundly disappointed in that poor solidarity and support for the finest electoral performance for a socialist -- and not a phony, bullshit socialist, but a real one -- in the history of this country. Bernie Sanders is good, honorable, and decent man who has NEVER swerved from advocacy and solidarity with the vital interests of working families. Perhaps this is all such new territory to all of us that foundering is to be expected. 

But I am ashamed of it.

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show

7-9 AM Weekdays, WSHC-Listen Live, Shepherd University

Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Record Low 4.7% Unemployment Rate Hides Ominous Signs [feedly]

----
Record Low 4.7% Unemployment Rate Hides Ominous Signs
// The Economic Populist - Speak Your Mind One Dime at a Time

The May 2016 unemployment report on the surface sounds like great news.  The unemployment rate dropped to an astoundingly low 4.7%.  This is a -0.3 percentage point drop from last month and a level not seen since November 2007.  Yet the statistics which make up the unemployment rate actually shows something terrible.  The unemployment rate dropped because 664,000 people dropped out of the labor force with almost half a million no longer counted as unemployed.

Share


----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

Weekend Reading: Andrew Batson: What Xi Jinping really said about Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong [feedly]

----
Weekend Reading: Andrew Batson: What Xi Jinping really said about Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong
// Grasping Reality with Both Hands: The Semi-Daily Journal Economist Brad DeLong



Andrew Batson: What Xi Jinping really said about Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong: "I looked up the original remarks by Xi, which he made on January 5, 2013...

...in a speech entitled 'Some Questions on Maintaining and Developing Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.'... There is an official summary... including the statement that Browne and Nathan focus on: 'we cannot use the historical period after reform and opening to deny the historical period before reform and opening, nor can we use the historical period before reform and opening to deny the historical period after reform and opening' (不能用改革开放后的历史时期否定改革开放前的历史时期，也不能用改革开放前的历史时期否定改革开放后的历史时期). But I also dug up the full text of the speech... which makes it easier to understand what Xi is getting at. Here is my translation of the most relevant section of the speech:

For our Party leading the people in building socialism, there are two historical periods: before 'reform and opening' and after 'reform and opening.' These are two interrelated periods that also have major differences, but the essence of both periods is that our Party was leading the people in the exploration and practice of building socialism. 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' was created in the new historical period of 'reform and opening,' but it was created on the basis of New China having already established the basic socialist system and carried out more than twenty years of work. A correct understanding of this problem requires grasping three points.

First, if our Party had not taken the decision in 1978 to carry out 'reform and opening,' and to unswervingly push forward 'reform and opening,' socialist China would not be in the good situation it is today–it is even possible it could have faced a serious crisis like the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. At the same time, if in 1949 New China had not been established in a socialist revolution, and accumulated important ideas, materials and institutional conditions, gaining both positive and negative experiences, it would have been very difficult for reform and opening to proceed smoothly.

Second, although the ideological direction, policies and practice of building socialism in these two historical periods were very different, these two periods are not separate from each other, and are not at all fundamentally opposed. Our Party has in the process of building socialism proposed many correct positions, but at the time they were not properly implemented; they were only fully implemented only after 'reform and opening,' and we will continue to adhere to them and develop them in the future. Marx said long ago: 'Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.'

Third, there must be a correct evaluation of the historical period before 'reform and opening.' We cannot use the historical period after 'reform and opening' to deny the historical period before 'reform and opening,' nor can we use the historical period before 'reform and opening' to deny the historical period after 'reform and opening.' The practice and exploration of socialism before 'reform and opening' built up the conditions for the practice and exploration of socialism after 'reform and opening;' the practice and exploration of socialism after 'reform and opening' is to maintain, reform and develop the previous period.…

The reason I emphasize this question is because this is a major political issue that, if not handled properly, will have serious political consequences. The ancients said: 'To destroy the people of a country, first go at their history.' Hostile forces at home and abroad often write articles about the history of the Chinese revolution and the history of New China–they stop at nothing in attacking, vilifying and slandering, but their ultimate purpose is to confuse people and to incite the overthrow of the Chinese Communist Party and our country's socialist system. Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why the Soviet Communist Party fall from power? One important reason is that in the field of ideology the struggle was very intense–fully negating the history of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party, negating Lenin, negating Stalin, promoting historical nihilism and confused thinking. Party organizations at all levels hardly did anything, and the army was not under the leadership of the Party. In the end, the Soviet Communist Party, this great Party, was scattered, and the Soviet Union, this great socialist country, fell to pieces. This is a cautionary tale!

Comrade Deng Xiaoping pointed out:

On no account can we discard the banner of Mao Zedong Thought. To do so would, in fact, be to negate the glorious history of our Party. On the whole, the Party's history is glorious. Our Party has also made big mistakes in the course of its history, including some in the three decades since the founding of New China, not least, so gross a mistake as the 'Cultural Revolution'. But after all, we did triumph in the revolution. It is since the birth of the People's Republic that China's status in the world has been so greatly enhanced. It is since the founding of the People's Republic that our great country, with nearly a quarter of the world's population, has stood up — and stood firm — in the community of nations.

He also stressed:

The appraisal of Comrade Mao Zedong and the exposition of Mao Zedong Thought relate not only to Comrade Mao personally but also to the entire history of our Party and our country. We must keep this overall judgement in mind.

This is the vision and thinking of a great Marxist statesman. Think for a moment: if at that time we had fully negated Comrade Mao Zedong, could our Party still stand firm? Could our country's socialist system stand firm? If it does not stand firm, then the result is chaos. Therefore, correctly handling the relationship between socialism before and after 'reform and opening' is not just a historical issue, in fact it is mainly a political issue. I suggest that everyone take out the 'Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China' and read it again.

I think it is not quite right to read this as Xi glorifying everything about Mao, and saying China made just as much progress during the Great Leap Forward as it did after 1978. What Xi is saying is that the legitimacy of the Communist Party China rests on the whole history of its rule, and that if the legitimacy of Party rule is questioned for one historical period, then it can be questioned for other historical periods. Deng felt the same way, and what Xi is doing in this speech is forcefully repeating Deng's own evaluation of Mao. The 1981 resolution on Party history that Xi cites is best known for how it assigned primary blame for the Cultural Revolution to Mao personally. But the resolution's overall assessment of Mao is rather balanced, and Deng himself insisted on this. The quotes from Deng that Xi mentions are remarks Deng made during the drafting of the resolution, and some other Deng comments from the same source make the point very clear:

Comrade Mao Zedong was not an isolated individual, he was the leader of our Party until the moment of his death. When we write about his mistakes, we should not exaggerate, for otherwise we shall be discrediting Comrade Mao Zedong, and this would mean discrediting our Party and state. … What we have achieved cannot be separated from the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Comrade Mao Zedong. It is precisely this point that many of our young people don't sufficiently appreciate.

The parallel that both Deng and Xi very clearly had in mind is the Soviet Union, and the backlash against Stalin that began with Khrushchev's famous 'secret speech' acknowledging Stalin's crimes. Chinese leaders clearly view the 'negation' of Stalin that Khrushchev began as fatally undermining the legitimacy of the Soviet Party, and leading inevitably to its collapse in subsequent decades. And they are not alone in this judgment. Here is the historian Orlando Figes on the impact of Khrushchev's 1956 speech, from his excellent Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991: A History:

The speech changed everything. It was the moment when the Party lost authority, unity and self-belief. It was the beginning of the end. The Soviet system never really recovered from the crisis of confidence created by the speech. How could people continue to believe in a revolution that had killed so many in the people's name? In leaders who had told so many lies? For the first time the Party was admitting that it had been wrong— not wrong in a minor way but catastrophically. How could it rebuild its credibility?

Exactly. I do not see much daylight between Xi Jinping and Deng Xiaoping in terms of their positions on Mao Zedong and Communist Party history. Xi is very much following in Deng's footsteps here, though he may be departing from Deng's legacy in other ways.

----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

You have received a YouTube video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNmx3qKmI8Y&sns=em

"Here's the Truth": President Obama Busts 4 Myths About the Economy [feedly]

"Here's the Truth": President Obama Busts 4 Myths About the Economy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/02/heres-truth-president-obama-busts-4-myths-about-economy

President Barack Obama delivers remarks at Concord Community High School, the site of his first trip as President, in Elkhart, Indiana, June 1, 2016. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

In 2009, just three weeks into his presidency, President Obama traveled to Elkhart, Indiana. In his first speech as president, he assured a community reeling from the economic recession that he would do all he could to recover and rebuild an economy that is stronger than ever before—for Elkhart and communities just like it across the country.

Seven and a half years later, President Obama returned to the city to recount the progress we've made since that day. And we've made quite a bit of progress. Over the past six years, our businesses have created more than 14 million jobs. Our manufacturing sector is seeing the first sustained growth since the 1990s. The unemployment rate has been cut in half—same for the oil we buy from foreign countries. And we've doubled our production of clean energy. For the first time ever, more than 90 percent of the country has health insurance.  

However, if you ask Republicans in Congress, you'll get an entirely different—and entirely false—story. It goes something like this (as told by President Obama): 

"America's working class, families like yours, have been victimized by a big, bloated federal government run by a bunch of left-wing elitists like me. The government is taking your hard-earned tax dollars and giving them to freeloaders and welfare cheats. It's strangling business with endless regulations. And it's letting immigrants and foreigners steal whatever jobs Obamacare hasn't killed yet."

 

The truth is, by almost every economic measure, we are better off than we were when President Obama took office. So the President decided to do a little myth-busting in Elkhart, taking on the four tallest tales that Republicans in Congress like to tell and laying out the real story behind our economic progress. Take a look:

Myth 1: Government Spending 

 

"No, government spending isn't what's squeezing the middle class."

 

When it comes to government spending, here are the facts: We spend less on domestic priorities outside of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid than we did under President Ronal Reagan. Under President Obama, we've cut the deficit by almost 75 percent. Today, fewer families are on welfare than in the 1990s, and funding has been frozen for two decades. 

And while almost all opponents of the Affordable Care Act like to claim the historic law is killing jobs and exploding spending, their claim is demonstrably false. Businesses have added jobs every month since the President signed health care reform into law in March of 2010. 

The ACA is actually leading to less spending for the average family as well. The average family's premium cost $2,600 less than it would have if premiums had kept growing at an earlier rate. 

Myth #2: Overregulation

 

"I've issued fewer executive orders than any two-term President since Ulysses S. Grant—that's a long time ago."

 

It's true. It's a fact that the President has issued fewer regulations than President George W. Bush. And the ones he has issued benefit our economy—from protecting our air and water to protecting families from getting cheated when they buy a house or invest their savings. 

Myth #3: Trade

 

"The truth is, the benefits of trade are usually widely spread —it's one of the reasons why you can buy that big, flat-screen TV for a couple hundred bucks, and why the cost of a lot of basic necessities have gone down."

 

Now, it is also true that past trade deals haven't lived up to the hype—especially when other countries don't play by fair rules.  By keeping U.S. goods out of their markets, they unfairly subsidize their businesses to undercut our own. The worst violators don't even have trade deals with us at all. That's why the President has brought more trade cases against other countries for cheating than any other president.  

As the president said, "Trade has helped our country a lot more than it's hurt us." For example, companies that export pay workers higher wages than companies that don't. And under the President's trade agreement—the Trans-Pacific Partnership—we will eliminate over 18,000 taxes various countries put on Made-In-America products. With the TPP, we can rewrite the rules of trade to benefit America's middle class. Because if we don't, competitors who don't share our values, like China, will step in to fill that void.  

Myth #4: Immigration

 

"Right now, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is near its lowest level in 40 years."

 

As the President noted yesterday, not only do immigrants start about 30% of all new businesses in the U.S., they actually pay more in taxes than they receive in services. And no, immigrants are not the main reason wages haven't gone up for middle-class families. That's a reflection of the decisions made by companies in which the top CEOs are getting paid more than 300 times the income of the average worker. So deporting 11 million immigrants would not only cost taxpayers billions of dollars and tear families apart, it would do nothing to seriously help the middle class. What our immigration system needs is comprehensive reform, the kind that President Obama has been pushing Congress to pass. That way, families who have been here for decades can come out of the shadows, go through background checks, and pay their taxes.  

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Construction workers dig during a sewer and water line project

Construction workers dig during a sewer and water line project Thursday, July 3, 2014, in Philadelphia. 

In 2014, a City of Philadelphia Water Quality Report contained this reassuring message: "We are committed to reducing the corrosive effects of plumbing and lead levels in water." The report's authors encouraged readers to distribute the findings widely to apartment complexes, businesses, nursing homes, and schools.

This week, a group of Philadelphia residents filed a class action lawsuit against the city, alleging that for years municipal officials knew about the city's lead-contaminated water supply and did nothing to warn residents.

Philadelphia is just the latest city to be hauled into court over post-Flint water contamination and testing issues, and it is probably not the last. An investigation by TheGuardian found that at least 33 cities, including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia, used faulty water testing protocols, similar to the ones identified in the Flint debacle.

The Guardian also identified potential major contamination issues in in 17 states. Two states, Michigan and New Hampshire, gave municipal officials specific instructions to take additional time with testing in order to produce results that meshed with federal guidelines. The NAACP filed a federal class action lawsuit last month against the state of Michigan and others in the Flint water crisis.

The Philadelphia lawsuit, filed in the Philadelphia County court system, charges that city construction projects and water main repairs caused lead to seep into residential water supplies and that city officials neglected to implement recommended corrective measures or advise residents of water contamination. Moreover, it alleges that officials concealed the problem by manipulating testing procedures to increase the likelihood of results that complied with federal water regulations.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Eleni Delopoulos, a Philadelphia actress, pursued the action against the city. City workers who were replacing water mains near the 37-year-old mother's home told her not to let her toddler son play in the dirt, since the soil was contaminated by lead. The city did not notify the family in advance about the work or any associated risks, according to the suit.

The city has been faulted for the tiny sampling of homes at highest risk for lead contamination. About 50,000 homes are connected to the city's water supply by lead pipes. To conduct the survey on which it based its 2014 report, the city sent out 8,000 requests for volunteers: 334 replied and 134 were finally selected. A larger sample size would have likely provided a more accurate picture of the extent of the contamination risks.

Philadelphia officials no doubt believed that the sample size was more than adequate: Pennsylvania regulations require a minimum sample size of 50 homes.

Another Guardian investigation found a comparable problem in the Philadelphia public schools: District officials never informed parents or the public about lead-contaminated school drinking water.

The disregard for public health across a wide swath of the country raises serious questions about the training and integrity of officials entrusted with water quality and treatment.  

Despite ongoing questions about water testing in the city, Philadelphia officials doubled down on a mystifying public relations strategy, calling at least one earlier news investigation "inaccurate." In February, questions about the city's variance from Environmental Protection Agency protocols prompted one city official to tell Philly.com, "It's guidance. It's not regulation. We are following what we know is good science for Philadelphia," as if good water testing science varies from city to city.

The lawsuit against the city called the city's explanations "insincere and illogical." A spokesman for Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney declined to comment on the lawsuit.  

Several cities have pushed back on The Guardian report. A Rockford, Illinois, official told a local newspaper that the city had revised its testing procedures and that the Guardian used out-of-date information. Officials in Buffalo and Boston also raised questions about news outlet's story and said that they intend to revamp testing protocols in future rounds of testing.

The crux of the problem may lie in netherworld between guidelines and regulations, as The American Prospect noted in a February article on local governments and federal water testing and treatment standards. The EPA issues guidelines to help state and local officials understand and comply with federal regulations. But guidelines do not pack the punch of regulations that carry specific penalties for violations.

Instead of prodding officials towards best practices in the federal regulatory regime, guidelines have become optional steps that some municipalities appear to be content to ignore even though lives are at risk.

The American water treatment crisis is the logical outcome of an anti-regulatory political climate that values pruning back regulations and eliminating the people needed to oversee the ones that remain in force. It allows state and local officials to ignore both good science and the public good.

In recent decades, some commentators have argued that "nudging" gets better results than regulation. It sure hasn't improved the safety of the water we drink. 

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show

7-9 AM Weekdays, WSHC-Listen Live, Shepherd University

Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.