OIRA@2050

From: Immigration Daily

by Angelo Paparelli

With the 2012 presidential campaign in full throb, candidates Obama and Romney are embracing “the vision thing” — that nemesis of the first President Bush whose reelection effort reportedly failed because he did not “frame his positions on individual issues in a compelling and unified manner.” The two de factonominees paint a starkly different picture of where each would take America and of government’s role in getting us there. Surprisingly, however, on one point they agree: The cumulative burden of federal regulations is simply overwhelming.

Letter from Institute for Policy Integrity/New York University School of Law to Committee on Regulation, Administrative Conference of the United States.

Subject: Committee on Regulation—Comments on Proposed Recommendations for Review of Regulatory Analysis Requirements (posted April 24, 2012)

The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law submits the following comments on the ACUS Committee on Regulation’s proposed recommendations for review of regulatory analysis requirements. Policy Integrity is a non‐partisan think tank dedicated to improving the quality of government decisionmaking through advocacy and scholarship in the fields of administrative law, cost‐benefit analysis, and public policy.

Complete Letter: Policy_Integrity_Comments_on_Draft_ACUS_Recs_on_Regulatory_Analysis_Reqs

From The Hill

Lefty groups fear White House reg reform plan will slash green protections

By Ben Geman

Several progressive groups are warning that White House plans to better align U.S. regulations with other countries’ could weaken environmental and public health protections.

The Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), the Union of Concerned Scientists, OMB Watch and Public Citizen have all issued statements that are critical or at least highly skeptical of the White House executive order issued Tuesday.

Here’s OMB Watch on Thursday:

Editor’s Note:  A pdf of the Regulatory Studies Center’s complete article on number of federal rules published annually is attached below.

From: The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center

 By Kathryn Vesey, Research Associate  

The GW Regulatory Studies Center has pulled together data on the number of final rules issued annually by the federal government. These figures include all regulations subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Therefore, these statistics only account for “significant regulatory actions” promulgated by federal agencies under the Executive Branch. Regulations issued by independent regulatory agencies, as well as all regulatory actions deemed not significant, are excluded from the data.  

Richard Williams/Mercatus Center at George Mason University

It is a commonplace to hear presidents and OMB officials claim that the total benefits of regulations exceed their total costs. In this week’s chart, Mercatus Center policy director Richard Williams highlights the disparity between the total number of rules and the number of rules with monetized benefits and costs in order to demonstrate that such claims simply cannot be validated.

Editor’s Note:  The following article claims that OSHA rulemakings take too long and places some of the responsibility on OMB.  The author ignores OMB’s statutory and Presidential authority to ensure that all stakeholders are protected by the “good government” laws that regulate the regulators.   Also not discussed are the economic consequences of unjustified or ineffective regulations.  Of note, the author cites and links to a GAO report on OSHA rulemakings that makes no criticism at all of OMB’s role in the process.

From: In These Times

Why Does OSHA Move at a Glacial Pace? Democrat Calls on Obama Admin to Speed Up Safety Measures

Editor’s Note:  OIRA should ensure that the FDA uses its regulatory authority to protect the public health from counterfeit versions of products under their jurisdiction.

From: AEI

In the past few months, fake cancer drugs have been found in clinics from California to Illinois. These fakes, which probably originated in China, were traded by numerous Middle Eastern and European traders, all of whom claimed they had no idea the products were fake. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is investigating.

Professor Rena Steinzor,  a talented  and well respected member of the legal community and a member held in high regard  of the friendly opposition,  has published an article titled  “The Case for Abolishing Centralized White House Regulatory Review in the inaugural issue of Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law.

Hats off to the Professor for being the first author to state unequivocally that centralized regulatory review began in the Nixon Administration. Unlike other authors she did not say it was a modest effort or a pilot for the future but simply that that the Nixon White House was the first to  control the regulatory state by exercising OMB control over agency regulations.

Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter

Everybody, it seems, has a beef about the Obama administration’s rulemaking.

Republicans and industry have spent the last two years slamming what they see as the Obama EPA’s regulatory excess, and environmentalists and government watchdogs have groused about the administration’s timidity.

In the eye of the political hurricane: about 50 number crunchers from the Office of Management and Budget.

Ensconced in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next door to the White House, OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs vets rules written by the agencies under authority given by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

Editor’s Note:  As noted below  analyses which consider the potential for regulations to create jobs need to distinguish between productive and unproductive work. An economy cannot be sustained by diverting scarce resources to “paper-pushing” and other unproductive, federally-mandated labor.

From: EnergyBiz

by Ken Silverstein

With the presidential election paring down to two candidates, the subject of environmental regulations and economic implications is building up. A new report by a non-partisan think tank is now forewarning the electorate to disregard the political rhetoric and to ask more critical questions.