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.

Rodrigo Sermeño


June 17, 2013 - 12:17 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Some Democrats in Congress, including Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), and liberal-leaning groups have complained about the delays.

“Key standards to protect public health, worker safety, and the environment have languished at OIRA, in some cases for years,” the senators told the White House in a letter sent last week. “OIRA frequently holds onto rules without explaining its concerns, preventing agencies from taking steps to address them.”

Supporting the senators’ concerns, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), a coalition of health, labor, and consumer groups, released a report on Tuesday arguing that more than 120 proposed regulations have stalled at OIRA. Some of the rules questioned by the CSS include regulations requiring an extension of minimum wage laws to home-care workers and better energy efficiency standards to reduce energy usage and save consumers money.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) used the hearing to criticize the Environmental Protection Agency over new ozone proposals, which he deemed “well-intended,” but suggested that when you increase the number of regulations, you reach a “point of diminishing returns.”

Shelanski said, just like his predecessor, he would emphasize cost-benefit analysis and retrospective review to assess the actual costs of regulation.

“I think it is important that agencies are able to carry out their statutory objectives of ensuring a sound environment, but it is also necessary to ensure that where costs and benefits can both be effectively taken into account that these objectives are not achieved at a higher cost than it’s necessary,” Shelanski said.

Johnson asked Shelanski how he planned to get the public involved in the rulemaking process, emphasizing the importance of getting the opinion of businesses on regulations. Shelanski replied that he hopes to increase public participation in the regulatory process by increasing transparency and communication.

Senate Republicans raised concerns over “unintended consequences” of rules that may impose “burdensome” regulatory costs on the economy. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), an OMB director under President George W. Bush, noted that the costs of rules issued in 2012 exceeded the combined costs of all regulations in the entire first terms of President Bush and President Clinton. The Ohio senator said last year there were 90 rule changes, saving $3.3 billion, which is good, but not in the context of $236 billion that agencies say the rules cost.

“There are high costs to regulation, but there is only so much one can learn from looking at the cost side,” Shelanski said. “The question is always whether the benefits that the regulation achieved can justify the costs.”

Shelanski, currently the director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Economics, has both a law and an economics degree and had a clerkship under U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He has also been a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center since 2011, after working as a faculty member at the University of California at Berkeley for 14 years.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Rodrigo is a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (4)
All Comments   (4)
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

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:
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