Institute for Policy Integrity

Twitter @policyintegrity

News & Events

In the News

Viewing all news in Transparency
  • Bush administration missed its own memo; ‘midnight regulation’ abounds after June 1 deadline

    October 29, 2008 – Grist

    In less than a week, this country will have a new President … but the old administration will still be hard at work, potentially pushing through last minute regulations for three more months. That leaves plenty of time for more bad news for the environment and public health.

  • Midnight Regulations

    October 28, 2008 – The Diane Rehm Show

    10.28.08 Executive Director, Michael Livermore on NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show” regarding Bush Administration’s “midnight regulations.”

    A look at the regulatory changes made by presidents in the final days of their administrations.

  • Bolten’s Memo on Midnight Regs? Ignore it.

    October 27, 2008 – The Pump Handle

    Richard Revesz, Dean of NYU’s School of Law, and Michael Livermore, Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity sent a letter to OMB Director Jim Nussle in early September, expressing concern that OMB was not asserting “appropriate controls over the regulatory process,” and giving three examples of proposed rules that appeared to violate the Bolten memo. One of the three mentioned is the infamous rule proposed by the Department of Labor on occupational health risk assessment.

  • Guest post: Michael Livermore on cost-benefit analysis

    October 27, 2008 – Common Tragedies

    Our next President will face triplet crises on the economy, environment, and energy. A fiscal crisis teetering on recession, uncontrolled greenhouse gases, and oil-rich dictators profiting from sky-high prices at the pump. With these three major storm fronts rolling in and threatening to collide, we’d better be prepared with a good plan. And I don’t think evacuation is an option.

  • Bush Administration: We Can So Promulgate New HHS Regulations!

    October 23, 2008 – RH Reality Check

    10.23.08 : Coverage of IPIs response from OIRA on Bush Administration’s midnight regulations.

    “There are many reasons to oppose the new Health and Human Services regulations that would expand provider conscience protections. The new regulations would enable providers not only to refuse to supply but refuse to refer patients for procedures or services the providers opposed, including contraception, abortion, and sexual health care services.”

  • Gas Prices + CO2 + Economy = The Perfect Storm

    October 22, 2008 – Triple Pundit

    We don’t yet know who will win the White House on November 4th. But what we do know is that the next administration will need to deal with a triplet of crises in the economy, environment, and energy. We’re watching the upward tick of the cost of a gallon of gas, the downward spiral of our economy, and the steady march towards 390 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Any one of these issues could make for a disaster. But as the three fronts converge, what we have is the perfect storm.

  • Huge Economic and Health Costs of New HHS Regulation Dismissed

    October 13, 2008 – RH Reality Check

    Pro-choice organizations and women’s groups have rightly been vocal about a recent proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand protections for medical professionals who refuse to provide health care services that they object to on moral grounds.

  • The Environment And Economics Aren’t At Odds

    June 10, 2008 – Forbes.com

    [Environmentalists] face the daunting challenge of convincing the next president and Congress to take significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To do so, they must show the American public that they are not zealots on a fool’s errand, but rather responsible voices working to address very real threats with real economic consequences.

  • Richard Revesz responds to Lisa Heinzerling, defending cost-benefit analysis

    June 5, 2008 – Grist

    Cost-benefit analysis, correctly applied to many environmental problems, will show that strong environmental regulation is often economically efficient. Although some environmentalists, including Lisa Heinzerling in a recent post, have expressed reservations about the use of cost-benefit analysis to evaluate environmental rules, rejecting cost-benefit analysis instead of seeking to reform it would be a major strategic error for the environmental movement.

  • NYU School of Law Forms New Nonpartisan Think Tank on Regulation

    May 20, 2008 – The National Law Journal

    “Without cost-benefit analysis, we are essentially regulating in the dark, a bad idea when regulations can cost billions of dollars, and smart regulation can save lives,” Revesz said. “By fighting to mend, rather than end, cost-benefit analysis, environmentalists can retake the high ground and win the fight for strong regulation.”