Get PJ Media on your Apple

Sunstein’s Successor Meets Skepticism About Regulatory Czar’s Role

GOPs raised concerns over “unintended consequences” of rules that may impose “burdensome” regulatory costs on the economy.

by
Rodrigo Sermeño

Bio

June 17, 2013 - 12:17 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

WASHINGTON— A Senate panel held a confirmation hearing Wednesday to fill the White House’s post of “regulatory czar” – a powerful but little-known position charged with reviewing rules proposed by government agencies.

President Obama tapped Howard Shelanski, an economist and lawyer, for the post in April.

If approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and confirmed by the Senate, Shelanski would serve as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). While not a cabinet-level position, the OIRA administrator must receive the Senate’s approval.

The administrator post at OIRA has been vacant since last August when Cass Sunstein departed after three years in the job. Boris Bershteyn, a lawyer who had served as counsel at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), took over as acting administrator.

A small but influential office, much of OIRA’s work is to help federal agencies work through the rulemaking process. The obscure agency is in charge of making sure that the costs of regulation do not outweigh the benefits.

The Paperwork Reduction Act established OIRA in 1980 as part of the OMB. Under the 1980 act, no federal agency is allowed to collect information from American citizens without permission from OIRA. Shortly after assuming office, President Reagan gave OMB the additional responsibility of reviewing and approving rules from federal agencies. That responsibility is exercised by OIRA within OMB.

In his largely anecdotal book, Sunstein described just how much power the OIRA wields in the Obama administration. According to Sunstein, as the OIRA administrator he had the authority to ensure that rules were never implemented, or that the favorite rules of regulators were rejected.

“Although some people think we need to choose between regulation and having a robust, growing economy, I disagree. I believe that federal regulations should only be issued when there is a real need, when they are cost-effective, and when they make sense,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the committee’s chairman, said during the hearing. “When these conditions are satisfied, federal regulation serves an essential purpose in protecting the environment, health, safety, consumers, and our financial system.”

Shelanski said that he would continue the regulatory look-back process emphasized by Sunstein, noting that prioritization and the approach of retrospective reviews is the primary responsibility of the OIRA administrator.

“I think it’s extremely important to ensure that even as we move forward as a country with new regulations achieving new objectives, or furthering old objectives, that we look back at regulations on the books to ensure that there are no longer burdens in place that are not achieving their objectives,” Shelanski said.

He also vowed on Wednesday to tackle a backlog of pending regulations if he wins Senate confirmation. He said that his priorities would be to ensure that regulatory review occurs in “as a timely manner as possible.”

By executive order, OIRA has to review proposed and final rules within 90 days. But as of last month, 87 rules had been sitting at OIRA for more than 90 days, while 51 had been under review from more than a year, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Shelanski.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (5)
All Comments   (5)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Here's a novel thought:
Instead of yea or nay by the administrator at OIRA, that person will submit the rules he/she approves of to Congress for ratification, and signature by the President.
Congress, then, would have no excuse for over-regulation, as it would be by its own hand.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Another appointment to America's Supreme Soviet; Sunnsteins wife is also a powerful member of the Supreme Soviet.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment

NSA Admits: An Analyst’s Decision is Sufficient to ‘Eavesdrop’ – No Warrant Required

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler’s disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii “wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president.”

Read More: http://news.cnet.com
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Governments have always used their regulatory powers as a way of shaking down people with money. There is nothing new about this. There are two solutions: (1) we can re-elect Republicans, so that they shake us down less and Democrats more, or (2) we can reduce the power of government. I prefer #2, the libertarian solution, but it may no longer a viable option, given the vast increase of governmental power under Bush and Obama and the corruption in our electoral system.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"GOPs raised concerns over “unintended consequences” of rules that may impose “burdensome” regulatory costs on the economy."

The problem here is that the GOP thinks the regs bring unintended consequences. They're wrong. The consequences are entirely intended.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All