OT; Bush gives the OK to pollute!!

[Guest guest]

Bush administration has begun to make good on its commitment of broad

deregulation, promoting a policy transformation long sought by the business

community and opposed by consumer, labor and environmental organizations.

Well beyond the intersecting spheres of energy and the environment, where

the shifting policies have been apparent for months and crystallized last

week in the proposal for a relaxation of regulations to encourage energy

development, the scaffolding of a new regulatory framework is taking shape.

It would affect antitrust enforcement, telecommunications, workplace rules,

consumer protections, financial services and even how the military and other

agencies buy goods and services from the private sector.

For instance, Sheila Gall, the official selected to head the Consumer

Product Safety Commission, has a decade-long track record at the agency of

voting against proposed safety rules because she has often said that injuries

are caused not by faulty product designs but by negligent consumers. Her

record has attracted widespread support from many manufacturers and strong

criticism from Consumers Union and other similar groups.

She has criticized the agency for promoting " a federal nanny state. " Safety

experts and industry executives predict that after she takes over, a number

of proposals under consideration, like one requiring flame-resistant

treatment of upholstered furniture and another regulating baby bath seats,

will be dropped.

J. Muris, the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission, has

repeatedly said that the Clinton administration was insensitive to the

economic benefits of large corporate mergers and too aggressive in bringing

major monopoly cases and challenging a large airline for predatory pricing.

Mr. Muris, a top antitrust official in the Reagan administration, complained

at his Senate confirmation hearing last Wednesday that under the previous

administration, " there were many large monopoly investigations at the

Department of Justice sending a signal that I thought was inappropriate. "

And D. Graham, another Bush appointee for a senior regulatory post, has

long maintained that the federal government has imposed too many onerous

environmental, health and safety regulations on big business without properly

calculating the financial costs of such regulations.

Dr. Graham, a Harvard professor whose research on risks has been sponsored

by corporations with stakes in the outcome of regulatory debates, has

maintained that exposure to low levels of dioxins, which the government

classifies as a human carcinogen, may actually reduce cancer and that there

is insufficient evidence to demonstrate any harmful effect of residual

pesticides on food. He is expected to become the White House's senior budget

official for reviewing almost every proposed federal regulation.

The approach being pursued by the Bush regulators involves a far more

rigorous examination of the financial costs and benefits of regulation, one

that experts predict will tip the balance of power from consumer,

environmental and labor groups to businesses and will lead to a wholesale

elimination of scores of rules that have prevented American companies from

both growing and having more flexibility in making business decisions.

Supporters of the existing regulations say that the rules promote many

benefits that are not easily quantifiable and are certain to be overlooked

under such cost-benefit analyses, from protecting consumers from dangerous

products to preserving the environment and limiting companies from dominating

certain crucial industries like telecommunications. But the administration is

sympathetic to companies that have been deeply critical of the financial

costs of such rules.

" There are those who believe cost should be no object, " said E.

s Jr., the White House budget director and a central player in the

regulatory process. " They take the position that if an objective feels good,

we should impose a regulation without regard to costs. That's not a very

realistic approach. "

While many of the Bush appointees are still awaiting confirmation, leaders

of American businesses say they can already feel the different regulatory

climate in Washington.

" Under Clinton, some of the regulatory agencies had a view that they didn't

trust business and the government did a lot of things even if they had to go

over the line, " said J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the

United States Chamber of Commerce. " The Bush guys have more of an

understanding of the effect of regulation on the business community and on

the economy. And they are doing it while there is an energy crisis on their

hands and an economy that is not doing well. "

But others say that the administration is simply repaying its campaign debts

to its most important supporters.

" The big oak tree is bending all the way over, " said Joan Claybrook,

president of Public Citizen, a public advocacy group, and a senior safety

regulator in the administration. " Bush is going full bore to support

his industry supporters. He wants to completely change the regulatory process

to be one that supports the industry. "

Not since the Reagan administration's wholesale reversals of regulatory

policies have the scales tipped so abruptly, according to lobbyists for both

sides in the long-running regulatory debate.

Just as during the so-called Reagan Revolution, the deregulatory renaissance

is largely a reflection of the pro-business agenda that President Bush

campaigned on. But the change is especially swift this time because Congress

and the White House are controlled by the Republicans for the first time in

nearly half a century. When the legislative and executive branches of

government are controlled by different parties, the regulatory agencies

typically take more moderate positions as they walk a line between Congress

and the White House.

While Bill Clinton and his administration courted business from Silicon

Valley to Wall Street, certain agencies in the 1990's were far more

aggressive in their rules and enforcement than in the prior administration.

This could be seen in actions ranging from the Microsoft<org idsrc= " NASDAQ "

value= " MSFT " ></org> antitrust case to enforcement of environmental

regulations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/business/23REGS.htm