Regulatory Costs and Benefits

I'm a little confused here. Something called E&ENews noted: "The White House Office of Management and Budget on Friday evening released its annual report on the costs and benefits of federal regulations, showing that the benefits of major Obama-era rules far exceeded the costs."

Vox caught the release, and went on to do an extensive analysis here. It's all good and heart-warming for a retired bureaucrat who believes that regulations can do good. They do.

But--when Vox links to the report, the link goes to the E&ENews site and brings up the : "2017 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act".  I briefly looked and didn't find it on the OMB/whitehouse site, but it may be there, well-buried.

Googling for the title of the report brings up a Forbes piece, combating the Vox analysis in part.  I disagree with the thrust of the writer's analysis, which says that "final rules" should be considered in the analysis, as opposed to "major" rules.  It's a sad fact that the threshold for the major rule is obsolete, when one looks at its history (which I've done but don't remember writing up--someday maybe).  I seriously doubt that considering final rules would change the overall picture. He's on somewhat better ground to doubt how concrete the cost-benefit analyses submitted to OMB are.

Towards the end of the Forbes article there's a little discussion of the process of submitting this report to Congress--interesting for a nerd like me, but disconcerting for anyone who believes in simplistic pictures of how the government operates.

Stockman and Mulvaney

This Politico piece on Republican libertarians such as Amash and Mulvaney brought back memories of another bright young congressman who knew all the numbers in the federal budget and took a job as OMB director: David Stockman, the inventor of the "magic asterisk".   One can only wonder whether he too will write a memoir entitled "The Triumph of Politics, Why the Trump Revolution Failed".

Amazingly his wikipedia article doesn't mention the asterisk.

Making Government Work--Credit to Bush

I stumbled across this site yesterday. I think I've criticized the Bush administration before for their efforts at e-government and improving management, but this is a creditable effort as applied to a program I know. The problem is persuading everyone along the line to agree on these evaluations. For example, the evaluation of the direct payment program questions the design of the program. But it was just reauthorized in the farm bill. I very much doubt that the American Corn Growers Association or the House or Senate Ag committees took much note of the evaluation. If the people with the money don't pay attention, then it's not likely the big shot bureaucrats are going to pay attention.

I'm not sure the extent to which the Secretary's office or OMB paid attention to the evaluations. If they did, it's good. If not, the only gains are in forcing bureaucrats to look at themselves--perhaps useful.

As a side note, one item that did hit the media was the issue of erroneous payments. It's good to see the latest erroneous payment figure is .37 percent (that's 37 hundredths of one percent). Of course, no one's going to put that on TV.

Our Up-to-date Government: OMB

This may be unfair, but I linked to this Government Executive article touting Bush's e-government:

President Bush's electronic government initiatives saved agencies $508 million in costs during the 2007 fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The goal of e-government is to "improve services to citizens, to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the government and to provide savings to the taxpayer," according to OMB's memorandum. To achieve those goals, the Bush administration is developing governmentwide IT services provided by one agency or service provider to manage cross-agency functions such as payroll, training and travel management.

But when I clicked through to the OMB memo, I found an August 2006 memo.