Opinion Editorial | |
Regulating the Regulators: Assessing the 1997 Regulatory Improvement ActH. Sterling BurnettH. Sterling Burnett is an environmental policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education institute. |
In 1997 the federal government, which had demanded that new passenger
vehicles come equipped with passenger-side air bags by that year, did an
about-face. Until 1997 government regulators claimed thousands of lives
would be saved in collisions. They failed to disclose evidence that passenger
air-bags could kill infants, children and small adults. As mandated, air-bags
were installed. Children died. In response to public outcry, the government
announced that with a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), vehicle owners could disconnect their air bags. Even with the NHTSA's waiver, finding an automotive repair shop willing
to do the work is difficult, since shops fear legal liability should future
owners be harmed in an accident involving a vehicle with disabled air bags.
Those shops that will disable air bags charge as much as $1,000 to do the
work; no small sum. It never should have come to this. At most, the government should have
recommended air bags, providing complete information concerning the relative
benefits and costs of them - allowing consumers to choose. In response to this and numerous other examples of regulations that are
hazardous to people's health, a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Michigan's
own Carl Levin (D) and Fred Thompson (R-TN), have started on the long journey
toward regulatory reform by introducing the Regulatory Improvement Act of
1997. Senate proponents of the Act argue that regulations are extremely expensive.
As evidence, they point out that businesses and private citizens spend
more than $6,000 per household to comply with regulations including higher
prices for goods and services and resources spent on paperwork. In addition,
economists have estimated that $1.3 trillion in economic activity is lost
each year due to federal regulations. Of course, if a regulation protects human health or prevents environmental
degradation, enormous costs might be justified. Unfortunately, too often
there are hidden costs imposed by regulations such as lost human lives.
For instance:
The Levin-Thompson Regulatory Improvement Act represents a first step
at minimizing lost lives due to ill-considered regulations by ensuring that
major regulations (those having more than a $100 million impact on the economy)
are made only after all relevant information is gathered and publicly disclosed.
The act is basically "right-to-know" legislation. It says
first, that citizens have a right to know what regulations are intended
to accomplish and at what cost. In other words, the act requires a cost-benefit
analysis be completed for all regulations. Cost-benefit analysis provides
a useful way to compare various options, all of which may be beneficial
in some way but not all of which can be simultaneously undertaken. Second, the Regulatory Improvement Act says that if regulatory agencies
do not use the least costly methods available to fix particular health,
safety and environmental problems, the public has a right to know why.
Third, the act says the public has a right to know what the relative
risks are that the regulations are meant to reduce, what scientific evidence
was used to estimate these risks and what risk the regulations themselves
pose. Information on relative risk is critical to making good public policy.
By making the science transparent the legislation hopes to head off claims
that "junk science" is being used to justify regulations or that
relevant scientific data that does not support a rule is being suppressed.
By requiring the types of analysis carried out by Dr. Graham, the Levin-Thompson
Act hopes to avoid combating trivial risks when substantial harms could
be averted using the same money. Even proponents of the Regulatory Improvement Act see the bill as just
the beginning of a longer-term reform effort. For instance, several legislators
have argued that Congress should have to review and affirm by vote all
new regulations. This reform would increase accountability in two ways.
First, regulatory agencies could no longer interpret congressional intent
in ways that increase their budgets and expand their power without improving
human health or environmental conditions. Second, Congress would be unable
to continue blaming regulatory agencies for bad regulations. If costly
and ineffective regulations became law, the voters could hold legislators
accountable. Regulatory reform is long overdue. Though the Levin-Thompson bill is
only a small step, it is a step in the right direction. The regulatory
state was not built in a day; it is unlikely to be substantially improved
in two sessions of Congress, much less in one bill. Should the 1997 Regulatory
Improvement Act become law, future legislators might be emboldened to give
more comprehensive regulatory reform a try. Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |