Author's details

Name: Jim Tozzi
Date registered: December 21, 2011

Latest posts

  1. A Conversation with Marcus Peacock — April 7, 2017
  2. EPA attacks harken back to Reagan era — March 13, 2017
  3. Trump’s safe and sane ‘regulatory reform’ idea — March 9, 2017
  4. Skeletal government needs meat on its bones — February 22, 2017
  5. Conference on Hill 3/2: The Time for Regulatory Reform in Congress — February 16, 2017

Most commented posts

  1. Cyber Legislation Will Cost Businesses and Hurt Economy — 1 comment
  2. The threat of substandard drugs — 1 comment
  3. Behavioral economics: come semplificare la vita agli italiani — 1 comment
  4. A more efficient path to online accessibility — 1 comment
  5. Fiduciary rule to OMB? — 1 comment

Author's posts listings


A Conversation with Marcus Peacock

From: Resources For the Future

About the Event

Marcus Peacock, currently serving as special advisor to US Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, appeared at RFF to discuss President Trump’s recent executive orders on regulatory policy. Mr. Peacock has written extensively on regulatory policy, including on concepts such as a regulatory budget and a two-for-one regulatory requirement.

He has a long career in public service and has held a number of posts in the federal executive branch, including deputy administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency and associate director at the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Peacock previously served as a staff director in both the House and Senate and worked for the Pew Charitable Trusts as well as an environmental consulting firm.


EPA attacks harken back to Reagan era

From: Marketplace



If it sounds familiar, Trump has imposed his own regulatory freeze. And like Trump, Reagan supported EPA budget cuts to boost defense spending.

“If you don’t want a lot of regulations, don’t hire a lot of regulators,” said Jim Tozzi. . . who oversaw the EPA budget in the early 1980s at the Office of Management and Budget. “So I held them down. And during that point in time, we had a lean and mean agency.”

Listen to Story/Read Complete Article


Trump’s safe and sane ‘regulatory reform’ idea

From: Fresno Bee

President Donald Trump’s emphasis on cost-benefit analysis is both welcome and hugely important. Some regulations impose significant costs, and the private sector really doesn’t like them. But they also create significant benefits, by helping consumers save money, preventing illness and saving lives. It would be a mistake, and it could be a tragedy, to repeal them.



Skeletal government needs meat on its bones

From: FederalNewsRadio.com

By Tom Temin


The President has ordered into place a new approach to regulation, asking for retirement of two for every one rule an agency proposes to issue. Regulatory reform might be sound public policy, but in reality nothing will get done without the people in place to continuously push this agenda at the agencies. The White House will need a fully functioning Office Regulatory Affairs. The OIRA administrator requires Senate confirmation, so there’s that challenge. But right now OIRA doesn’t even have a website.


Conference on Hill 3/2: The Time for Regulatory Reform in Congress

From: Notice & Comment | A Blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation and the ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice

by Chris Walker

On March 2, 2017, the Center for the Study of the Administrative State is hosting a public policy conference on the Hill entitled The Time for Regulatory Reform in Congress. The Center’s director Neomi Rao and I have organized this event, and it should be a lot of fun. It’s free, with food, so register here.

In the meantime, if you’re interested in exploring regulatory reform legislation pending in the current Congress, check out the latest summary released by the Administrative Conference of the United States here.


Pursuing Regulatory Excellence: Brexit, Trump, and Beyond

From: Penn Program on Regulation & Brookings Institution, Center on Regulation and Markets


Brookings Institution
Saul/Zilka Room
1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

9:00 AM  -10:30 AM

Regulation today evokes much controversy and discontent. In the UK, Brexit signaled a major public backlash against regulations imposed by the European Union. In the United States, Donald Trump won the presidency having vowed to eliminate as many as 75 percent of federal regulations. Given the intense focus on the quality and legitimacy of government regulation around the world, how can those entrusted to devise and implement regulations best achieve success? How can they balance the goals of improving health, safety, financial protection, and economic well-being through government oversight without imposing excessive costs on consumers and businesses and without impeding innovation and economic growth?


Free-Market Groups Urge Congress To Expand CRA’s Reach To Older Rules

From: Inside EPA

Dawn Reeves


Another group supporting this idea is the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), which affirms Gaziano’s interpretation in a blog post responding to the Journal article. “If implemented the aforementioned use of the CRA will result in a game-changing approach to the retrospective review of regulations.” CRE also notes that it notified lawmakers in 2010 that EPA failed to submit its 2009 EDSP regulation and that it was not in effect. EPA later submitted the report, a CRE source says.



Trump tells business leaders he wants to cut regulations by 75% or ‘maybe more’

From: CNBC

President Donald Trump told business leaders on Monday he believes he can cut regulations by 75 percent or “maybe more.”

At the White House with 10 senior executives, he repeated his campaign pledges to roll back corporate rules, arguing that they have “gotten out of control.” A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request to elaborate on which rules Trump will target or how the 75 percent was calculated.

Read Complete Article


President Trump’s Regulatory Vision

From: RegBlog | Penn Program on Regulation

Editor’s Note: The most important regulatory reform is Regulatory Budget.


If the United States moves toward a formal regulatory budget, regulators will face the challenge of selecting existing rules to review and rescind. President Obama and several of his predecessors already requested that agencies look back at existing regulations to find ones “to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal.” Although President Obama’s efforts resulted in some substantive reviews, regulators often added new regulations and costs rather than trimming them. Does President-elect Trump leave retrospective review in the hands of cabinet agencies, or task other governmental bodies such as the Congressional Budget Office or the Bureau of Economic Analysis with the job of reviewing more than 170,000 pages of past rules to determine candidates for rescission? Regardless of who is in charge, a functioning regulatory budget depends upon a robust retrospective review effort.


This Could Be the Moment for Rolling Back Regulators’ ‘Soft Despotism’

From: Forbes

Henry I. Miller


That’s bad enough, but often regulators don’t bother to go through the arduous, regimented, required rulemaking process; instead, they make policy by issuing documents variously called “guidance” or “points to consider.” Sometimes policies become evident only from agencies’ decisions to prosecute real or imagined transgressions of its regulations, or from the two extremes of inaction or excessive regulatory zeal.


Older posts «