In the News

EPA is stuck between a rock and a hard place, said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Even if the agency has qualms about the proposed rules, it can’t make any changes that weren’t subjected to public comment last year. Whether the agency’s final rule is similar to the proposed rule or makes substantial changes, it’s bound to face lawsuits, Livermore said.

Tuesday’s news of a new executive order on regulatory review was not welcomed by some progressives. President Obama announced his move in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, and it was widely perceived as an olive branch to regulated businesses. But in its substance, the order mostly boosts the case for a strong government hand in protecting the public from the negative consequences of the free market.

The Clinton order lasted six years into George W. Bush’s presidency. But a lot depends on how the White House uses its power. In the Bush years, says Michael Livermore of New York University Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, “the actual practice changed significantly” and “informal reviews” essentially derailed rules secretly. In 2007, Mr. Bush replaced the Clinton order with his own, among other things, strengthening the role of political appointees.

Michael Livermore, the Institute for Policy Integrity’s executive director, claims that the cost-benefit analysis enshrined in Obama’s executive order rewards regulations that benefit society, dismissing conservative arguments that most regulations are burdensome to businesses. “For rules they’ve adopted in which you get more benefit at less cost, the net benefit to society is worth billions and billions.”

Richard Revesz, the law school’s dean and the center’s faculty director, said that the president made several noteworthy changes to the federal regulatory review process which progressive groups should embrace.

Public-interest groups have nothing to fear from Obama’s executive order, which provides more opportunities for the public to make a case for additional regulatory protections, said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law. “This move demonstrates the administration’s belief that when cost-benefit analysis is done right, the facts often support stronger protections,” Livermore said. “In the long term, this order is likely to displease those industry groups that want less regulation without regard to public benefits.”

That type of calculus was praised by cost-benefit analysis supporters such as Richard Revesz, dean of New York University’s law school. “The environment and the economy are not at odds,” Revesz said today. “On the contrary, the success of each one is linked to the well-being of the other. By making this case, the president pointed to a better way of safeguarding both.”

The New York Times called it “courtship of the business community.” While Michael Livermore, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU, a think tank that supports strong health and environmental regulations, applauds the move.

The return of Republican control in the House of Representatives and a new, business-friendly governor in Albany will likely put the spotlight in the months ahead on the dreaded R-word: regulation. If we keep cool, avoid name-calling and look at government regulation as something to be calibrated, not killed, this confluence of events can lead to greater efficiency instead of random slashing.

This food price news comes on the heels of new data on the cost of oil, which closed at more than $90 a barrel earlier this week. “The last time we had a spike in food prices, it was related to increased oil prices, and that’s because oil is an input into food for the production price,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity.