<div dir="ltr">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="">July 5, 2013</div>
<h1>Reining In the Regulators</h1>
<h6 class="">By
<span>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by THE EDITORIAL BOARD"><span>THE EDITORIAL BOARD</span></a></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
For all its rabid partisanship, Congress has shown time and again that
it is willing to come together to deregulate corporate America. The
latest example is a new bill in the Senate that would effectively end
the independence of independent regulatory agencies, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor
Relations Board. </p>
<p>
Introduced by Republicans Rob Portman and Susan Collins and Democrat
Mark Warner, the measure, if enacted, would scotch any remaining hope
for putting the Dodd-Frank financial reform law fully into practice
anytime soon — if ever. In the long run, it would benefit powerful
corporate interests over investor protection, consumer health and safety
and basic fairness. </p>
<p>
Unlike cabinet departments and executive agencies, independent agencies
do not report to the White House. They are overseen by Congress, which
deemed them independent to insulate them from pressure by the executive
branch and to keep them focused on their public missions. </p>
<p>
The Senate bill, called the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.1173:">Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2013</a>,
would require such agencies to submit all significant draft rules to
the White House for review. The stated goal is to ensure that new rules
appropriately balance costs and benefits. In reality, White House
review, first established in 1980 to vet draft regulations from
executive agencies, has long proved to be an obstacle to timely and
strong regulation. </p>
<p>
The review process often adds lengthy delays to already arduous
rule-making procedures, in large part because corporations use it as an
opportunity to lobby for favorable treatment. It is opaque and also
politicized, as shown most recently by the Obama administration in 2012,
when it delayed important rules in an attempt to coddle industry and
avoid Republican criticism in an election year, creating a regulatory
backlog that persists to this day. </p>
<p>
Subjecting independent agencies to executive regulatory review would not
improve the rule-making process, but it would ensure that ostensibly
regulated industries are as unregulated and deregulated as possible.
</p>
<p>
Even the bill’s Senate proponents admit as much, though not intentionally. In June, Mr. Portman posted a supportive letter <a title="Portman letter" href="http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8eb0dbd9-5631-4878-bfb2-e040407cf0ba">on his Web site</a>
from 10 “current and former” top officials of independent regulatory
agencies. Several of the signatories are now lobbyists or lawyers for
corporate clients that are regulated by the independent agencies. The
only signatory who is a current official is Nancy Nord, a Bush appointee
to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who has been a defender of
industry and is set to leave the office in October. </p>
<p>
There is no question that making independent agencies less independent
is a bad idea. The question is whether Congressional Democrats and
administration officials will join forces to kill the measure. </p><br clear="all"></div><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
<br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
</div>