Some welcome news via an editorial issued by The Wall Street Journal. Barack Obama’s EPA hyped the cost-benefit analysis of its proposed rules while downplaying their overall impact on the economy. By doing so, EPA bureaucrats would push through almost 600 new mandates a year, imposing the highest regulatory costs of any federal agency.
Thankfully, the EPA is poised to take the first step in reforming cost-benefit analysis by requiring an agency-wide standard for how rules are applied. This, in turn, would make the regulatory process more transparent since it would allow politicians and even civilians to assess whether more regulation is needed. The Editorial goes on to state:
By introducing “social costs” and “social benefits,” the EPA began factoring in speculation about how regulatory inaction would affect everything from rising sea levels to pediatric asthma. EPA optimists even included their guesses about how domestic regulations could have a…
View original post 324 more words