In the News

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.

Or, some people argue, EPA could have done what most economists agree is the sensible thing and established a cap-and-trade program on its own. Think tanky groups like the Constitutional Accountability Center and the Institute for Policy Integrity argued that the Clean Air Act gives EPA that power. Of course, that would have been politically explosive too.

When human health and safety are at risk Americans expect their government to protect them. We assume we are guarded against risks like lead in children’s toys or poisons in our drinking water. And for the most part, these protections deliver benefits well beyond what they cost. A proposal on Capitol Hill would require Congress to vote on every large regulation put forward. The measure (PDF), given the acronym “REINS,” and introduced by Jim DeMint in the Senate and Geoff Davis in the House, has as its goal slowing down what they call “costly anti-free market regulations that are destroying jobs.” But its real effect will be to grind action by administrative agencies nearly to a halt.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in April that the FCC did not have legal authority to stop Comcast, the nation’s largest cable provider, from blocking its customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent. The decision limited the FCC’s power over web traffic under the current law and gave the ability for Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites. For example, they could decide to charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users. “That’s the worst case scenario,” said Scott Holladay, an economics fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University. “The likelihood of that happening is very small.”