Evaluate regulation carefully
The return of Republican control in the House of Representatives and a new, business-friendly governor in Albany will likely put the spotlight in the months ahead on the dreaded R-word: regulation. If we keep cool, avoid name-calling and look at government regulation as something to be calibrated, not killed, this confluence of events can lead to greater efficiency instead of random slashing.
The news at the start of the new year was a series of letters to businesses and groups from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In a letter to the National Association of Manufacturers, for example, he asked "for your assistance in identifying existing and proposed regulations that have negatively impacted job growth in your members' industry."
Some legislators seldom say the word "regulations" without the phrase "job-killing." And some regulations really are job killers. But the lack of adequate regulation can be a people killer. In fact, it has been identified as a key factor in BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The federal government is not the only regulator. A recent report by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, a nonpartisan group focused on government decision-making, found that states regulate almost 20 percent of our economy. And the states have countered a federal trend toward deregulation by picking up some of the slack.
In the 20th century, as society grew more complex, state legislatures more and more gave executive-branch agencies power to "translate their often-vague statutory pronouncements into actual laws," the institute's report says. But they also gave unelected officials, even though they might be experts in a particular field, a lot of power. So states adopted mechanisms for review of their regulations. The NYU study examined these mechanisms in detail and gave each state a grade. More than half - 27 - got a D-, D or D+. New York drew a D+.
In our state, the legislature has a review process, but it "operates sporadically, with long periods of inactivity," the NYU report found. Then there's the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform (GORR), created by Gov. George Pataki in a 1995 executive order, and renewed by his successors. Some believe GORR is where regulations go to die. Others think it has worked well enough, though it takes months to complete its reviews.
Into this important arena enter Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, whose drive to create a more attractive business climate makes him a natural to sort out the effectiveness of regulations and regulatory review.
His goal should be a Goldilocks regulatory scheme: not too little, not too much, but just right. Rigorous cost-benefit analysis of our regulations should carry the day. If government is failing to control activity that hurts citizens, it should tighten the reins. If it's stifling business with little real benefit, it should loosen them. That's a good rule of thumb for our governor - and for Darrell Issa.
