U.S. policy and political philosophy thread I: what are you and what is that?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It'll be in the CFR. Is this a final rule? Proposed rule? What happened recently? 2012? Got a month? Give me some more information and I'll find it. If this can be a cooperative effort, how about some search terms? Did they use the phrase "global warming?" I'm willing to go at the CFR on Westlaw with terms and connectors, but give me something to work with.

http://www.epa.gov/c...nitiatives.html

What I find interesting is how costs/benefits are actually going to be calculated given the claim that conservative demands for such calculations with respect to carbon emissions and climate change are said to be unreasonable because the science isn't that precise.

The result has actually been some record number of EPA regulations being tossed. I have no idea if anger about this from the party is why Sunstein is leaving the agency. So, there's your result - what you do think?

First, are these proposed regulations, or regulations already in effect?

Second, the "result" is still the entire universe of what the EPA does which I know cannot possibly be accounted for correctly. How does the OIRA account for the cost to a business of an 18 month delay because of internal agency debate, people losing documents, conflicting experts, etc.? Again, perhaps the most significant cost imposed by the EPA is not the direct cost of purchasing new scrubbers (for example) but rather the incredible friction and delays that come from being forced to comply with the various demands (often changing) of EPA personnel charged with administering/enforcing those rules, etc. I don't see any way that OIRA can possibly account for that in Washington because they're just not out there at the local level seeing what is actually happening in practice.

[Guest Raidne]

http://www.epa.gov/c...nitiatives.html

Okay, this is a whole page of all of EPA's initiatives. Under the heading "Transportation/Mobile Sources" there is a Renewable Fuel Standard Program headline and a headline titled "EPA and NHTSA Standards to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Use for New Motor Vehicles." The latter links to a page with several other links to several other more specific initiatives.

If we want an example, we're going to need one rule. Pick one. Then we can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations and then track it through the Federal Register.

Of course, know that if you pick an "initiative"/proposed rule and not a final rule, you're only going to see the "notice" part of the process - where the agency tells everyone what they're thinking about doing. Then we get the "comment" part, where all interested parties can submit their comments. Then agency issues a final rule and accounts for a discusses the objections in the comments. That would be the ideal part to see, in all likelihood.

OIRA reviews only economically significant rules, those that:

1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
   
2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
   
3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
   
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.
   

Their review occurs at the end, before publication. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp

What I find interesting is how costs/benefits are actually going to be calculated given the claim that conservative demands for such calculations with respect to carbon emissions and climate change are said to be unreasonable because the science isn't that precise.

I've never heard this.

First, are these proposed regulations, or regulations already in effect?

From the FAQ:

Q. What are the different types of significant regulatory actions currently displayed on the dashboard that undergo OIRA review?

A. They are:

• Notice - These are documents that announce new programs (such as grant programs) or agency policies.
  
• Pre-rule (or advance notice of proposed rulemaking) - Agencies undertake this type of action to solicit public comment on whether or not, or how best, to initiate a rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to the proposed rule stage.
  
• Proposed rule - This is the rulemaking stage in which an agency proposes to add to or change its existing regulations and solicits public comment on this proposal.
  
• Final rule - This is the last step of the rulemaking process in which the agency responds to public comment on the proposed rule and makes appropriate revisions before publishing the final rule in the Federal Register to become effective.
  
• Interim Final Rule - These interim rules are typically issued in conformity with statutory provisions allowing agencies to publish a final rule that becomes effective soon after publication, without going through the proposed rule stage. The "good cause" exception in the Administrative Procedure Act allows agencies to bypass public notice and comment on a rule when it would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This process typically allows for public comment after the rule is published so that the agency still has an opportunity to consider public input and revise the rule accordingly.
  
• Direct Final Rule - These rules are similar to interim final rules, except that there is no comment period after publication, on the ground that they are uncontroversial. Such rules are categorized simply as "final rules" for display purposes on the dashboard.
  

I'm not gonna lie, it's fucking complicated. The FAQ is helpful.

Second, the "result" is still the entire universe of what the EPA does which I know cannot possibly be accounted for correctly. How does the OIRA account for the cost to a business of an 18 month delay because of internal agency debate, people losing documents, conflicting experts, etc.? Again, perhaps the most significant cost imposed by the EPA is not the direct cost of purchasing new scrubbers (for example) but rather the incredible friction and delays that come from being forced to comply with the various demands (often changing) of EPA personnel charged with administering/enforcing those rules, etc. I don't see any way that OIRA can possibly account for that in Washington because they're just not out there at the local level seeing what is actually happening in practice.

Do you not think agencies take the "comment" part of "notice and comment" seriously? You can who OIRA meets with - a lot of private industry. I mean, think about the Chevron case - how do you think EPA passed that rule if they don't listen to private industry?

[Kalbear]

Raidne, I'd really appreciate it if you could take your side arguments about the EPA out of threads about political philosophy. It's really bothersome to see such derailment. Thanks!

[Guest Raidne]

Might want to reread that thread title, champ.

[Kalbear]

Sorry, I was confused. I thought you wanted to talk about general policy, not specific newsworthy actions that are current events right now. I didn't realize you wanted to speak about anything relating to US policy. Perhaps you could be more clear about precisely what you will and will not allow as far as this thread?

Thanks!

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Ok folks, chill it. Or take it to PM. Or both.

[/mod hat]

[Guest Raidne]

Yeah, like I said via PM, apologies, and I deleted what I posted right after posting it before my post was modded, and I'm sorry you had to do that. To answer Kal's question, in case he is serious, the thread is about (1) U.S. (2) Policy and (3) Political Philosophy.

Someone else suggested that we start it to talk about larger issues not related to the election in order to not mess with the vibe of the U.S. politics thread, which many people enjoy. Two threads were recently merged into the U.S. politics thread, because they ended up being about politics. As such, if we want this thread to be separate, which at 16 pages, I think we do, it's a good idea to not overlap. Maybe a mod can comment on that, because I'm guessing at policy.

The discussion on the EPA is actually a discussion about the administrative state, one of the most important policy subjects since the 1940s in the United States. The EPA is example FLOW chose - he was wondering how the executive branch can effectively conduct a cost-benefit analysis by way of putting forth the argument that more regulation is bad because it's too complicated to be controlled by a central authority.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The EPA is example FLOW chose - he was wondering how the executive branch can effectively conduct a cost-benefit analysis by way of putting forth the argument that more regulation is bad because it's too complicated to be controlled by a central authority.

I officially give up. It gets really old when someone keeps mischaracterizing your argument despite repeated clarifications.

I have neither stated nor implied that "more regulation is bad because it is too complicated to be controlled by a central authority." In fact, given that I've specifically stated that we need regulation by the EPA, and that the EPA is a central authority, it stands to reason that I believe that some central regulation is required even if we cannot precisely calculate all costs and benefits. Some regulation is good, and some ain't. And the govenrment doesn't always get it right.

My objection was to your explicit assertion that EPA costs and benefits have "all costs properly calculated." I maintain that they don't, and the OIRA actually agrees with me. When I then said that we likely have an agreement EPA regulation is necessary, but disagreement as to how the EPA impacts the economy and economic growth overall, you said that my disagreement could only be based on a "fucked up" understanding of what actually happens.

And now, we're back to you saying that I believe we can't have central regulations. You win.

:bang:

[Guest Raidne]

I officially give up. It gets really old when someone keeps mischaracterizing your argument despite repeated clarifications.

I have neither stated nor implied that "more regulation is bad because it is too complicated to be controlled by a central authority." In fact, given that I've specifically stated that we need regulation by the EPA, and that the EPA is a central authority, it stands to reason that I believe that some central regulation is required even if we cannot precisely calculate all costs and benefits. Some regulation is good, and some ain't. And the govenrment doesn't always get it right.

Well, shit, I wasn't trying to be unfair. I think you misread me. I meant that multiplying regulations is undesirable because the inherent complexity involved in getting it right is just too much for any organization to be able to realistically do, which is why we trust some things to the free market (i.e. more regulation is bad because it's too complicated to be controlled by a central authority?). You know, like the problems the Chinese have, going at it the opposite way? What's the problem here? I don't think it's a bad point?

And it's true, it happens. I could use my own agency's regulations as an example for the purposes of this whole discussion. Some of them are stupid. The vast majority of them are not. I find this really surprising. I find how well the system actually works to be surprising - and in no way do I mean to discount the people screwed over the system - there are many - recourse takes a long time, but at least it is there.

I don't think people know anything about this - how well the system, as designed, actually works.

But here is where the bureaucracy you know and love comes in - dealing with the bureaucracy sucks because people are fucking morons and do not apply the rules correctly. This is a human resources problem. The government has massive, massive human resources issues. All private companies do too, but the mission is not quite as massive. I am one small department in an agency. We are 300 lawyers, and we're supposed to be staffed at 400. That is a very, very large firm. I'd like to see a law firm handle the case load and correspondence, etc., that we do, as well as we do. So, huge human resource problems because huge. But HR problems can be solved - there are whole fields that do this, and are really good at it! Unfortunately, we rarely get their best efforts because of the complexities in the contracting process and the layers of subcontractors on contractors, etc. We probably need to beef up OPM with really good people and run it internally.

But, if you take my point, the regulations are only a problem to the extent that they require more staff. If not, not a problem. The rule-making part works great.

But yes, we can agree that we should be wary about regulations that require more staff.

Do we agree on something or no? I am really sorry I frustrated you, I really wasn't trying to misstate your position. I'm kind of having a chinese fingercuffs moment on the board lately so it gets a little complicated.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, shit, I wasn't trying to be unfair. I think you misread me. I meant that multiplying regulations is undesirable because the inherent complexity involved in getting it right is just too much for any organization to be able to realistically do, which is why we trust some things to the free market (i.e. more regulation is bad because it's too complicated to be controlled by a central authority?). You know, like the problems the Chinese have, going at it the opposite way? What's the problem here? I don't think it's a bad point?

And it's true, it happens. I could use my own agency's regulations as an example for the purposes of this whole discussion. Some of them are stupid. The vast majority of them are not. I find this really surprising. I find how well the system actually works to be surprising - and in no way do I mean to discount the people screwed over the system - there are many - recourse takes a long time, but at least it is there.

I don't think people know anything about this - how well the system, as designed, actually works.

But here is where the bureaucracy you know and love comes in - dealing with the bureaucracy sucks because people are fucking morons and do not apply the rules correctly. This is a human resources problem. The government has massive, massive human resources issues. All private companies do too, but the mission is not quite as massive. I am one small department in an agency. We are 300 lawyers, and we're supposed to be staffed at 400. That is a very, very large firm. I'd like to see a law firm handle the case load and correspondence, etc., that we do, as well as we do. So, huge human resource problems because huge. But HR problems can be solved - there are whole fields that do this, and are really good at it! Unfortunately, we rarely get their best efforts because of the complexities in the contracting process and the layers of subcontractors on contractors, etc. We probably need to beef up OPM with really good people and run it internally.

But, if you take my point, the regulations are only a problem to the extent that they require more staff. If not, not a problem. The rule-making part works great.

But yes, we can agree that we should be wary about regulations that require more staff.

Do we agree on something or no? I am really sorry I frustrated you, I really wasn't trying to misstate your position. I'm kind of having a chinese fingercuffs moment on the board lately so it gets a little complicated.

There are regulations, and then there are regulations. I don't think the application of what largely amount to legal rules that your agency handles -- which are largely pseudo-adjudicative rules -- is quite the same as the kind of real world proscriptive regulations that come out of regulatory bodies that deal with very practical questions of production, etc.. In part because you guys are largely lawyers performing what amounts to a lawyerly function, in a less partisan/policy oriented agency than most. I suspect that changes in Administrations don't really affect the substantive results you guys reach. At least, not nearly as much as in more policy-oriented bodies such as the EPA, where you're going to get a lot more agenda-driven actions that have a more political/policy component.

But when you're talking about administrative agencies that have more of a policy orientation, particularly in areas that are controversial or hortly debated, the individual levels of discretion and preferences can have an enormous impact on what the actual effect is at the ground level. And that's one reason (in addition to the OIRA's acknowledgement that some important costs and benefits are inherently non-quanitfiable) why I mistrust centralized cost/benefits estimates. They will be useful for some things, but completely useless for others because the regulation as written doesn't reflect the regulation as applied.

[Guest Raidne]

There are regulations, and then there are regulations. I don't think the application of what largely amount to legal rules that your agency handles -- which are largely pseudo-adjudicative rules -- is quite the same as the kind of real world proscriptive regulations that come out of regulatory bodies that deal with very practical questions of production, etc.. In part because you guys are largely lawyers performing what amounts to a lawyerly function, in a less partisan/policy oriented agency than most. I suspect that changes in Administrations don't really affect the substantive results you guys reach. At least, not nearly as much as in more policy-oriented bodies such as the EPA, where you're going to get a lot more agenda-driven actions that have a more political/policy component.

Well, I would love to comment on any of that, but I cannot. I will say that I think our chances of laying down rules that measure someone's actual degree of impairment from a vertebral fracture right are probably about as good as EPA's abilty to get the cost-benefit analysis on the renewable fuel program right. It's just that if we screw up, we're screwing over a bunch of individual people that aren't organized whereas EPA is screwing over large corporations with a lot of money so you're certainly more likely to hear about it. But from a public choice perspective, we have the service organizations and then not a lot on the other side. The EPA has very interested parties on both sides, although I don't think they really bring Greenpeace to the meetings of experts, etc. Scientists are probably represented, but the auto industry probably brings their own, too.