Editor’s Note: Conducting Benefit-Cost Analyses of federal programs traces its vintage to the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936. It is possible that the current debate might be one of the few times that a prolonged attention is being given to addressing income distribution in the exercise of benefit-cost analyses by either the President or the Congress since such actions were championed by leading members of Congress during the Johnson Administration. The Administration has indicated that it is going to address income distribution in the rulemaking process. Stakeholders can either wait and comment on the Administration’s position or in the alternative take a proactive position by making a recommendation; the purpose of this note is to lay the foundation for the latter option by soliciting the views of experts on the alternatives presented herein.
Two days after the election CRE published a paper titled: “Questions to Nominees for the Administrator of OIRA” which was distributed widely to affected parties.
Option #2 received considerable attention in that it deals with OIRA assuming a proactive role in addressing existential threats.
Option #3 at least until now, received considerably less attention. The thrust of this option is the need for OIRA to develop a multi-year, multi-agency regulatory program which is reviewed by the public, the Congress and stakeholders.