Public Inquiry: Law School Curricula– What Type of Educational Background Should We Emphasize When Recruiting Employees to Work With Federal Regulators?

                                                         We Welcome Comments In The Space Below(1)
The third year of law school is what a student wants it to be; why not award a Diploma in Administrative Law to those who wish  to  undertake an in-depth study of the APA, the ACUS policy directives and the economic papers published by the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis? The CRE Archives would augment the ACUS policy directives when addressing centralized regulatory review.

If you are interested in employees who are going to participate in the judicial review of federal rules, then it best you contact the law school of your choice.  However, recognizing that only a minuscule number of attorneys ever enter the aforementioned practice area, as witnessed by the fact that Administrative Law is not on the bar exam, we recommend that you broaden your search. More specifically the super majority of attorneys working on regulatory issues never visit a courtroom; instead they advise on compliance and related reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

An In-Process Recommendation to the Biden Administration

 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.

Option # 3: An Initial Approach to Addressing Income Inequality in Federal Rulemaking

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.

A Response to the Presidential Executive Order on Modernizing Centralized Regulatory Review

March 25, 2021
 ALR       JBCA    Yale-ABA

The presentation set forth below was made to a panel at  the 2021 Annual Conference of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis on March 24 by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness and duly forwarded to members of the Biden Administration.

                                                     CRE Takeaways

Here are CRE’s takeaways from the aforementioned presentation which is posted below this summary statement:

George Shultz and the History of Centralized Rulemaking