Blog

As the Center for Progressive Reform enters our third decade of advocating for progressive policy for the public good, our country is facing wholly unprecedented challenges: A suffering climate. Unimaginable inequality and inequities that dispossess the majority. A faltering democracy. The Center is extremely gratified to have three new Board members join us and lend their deep expertise and wide range of experiences as we tackle these challenges and more.

Last December, the Biden administration issued a rule defining the scope of the federal government’s authority over streams and wetlands. Congressional Republicans vowed to overturn the rule, using a procedure created by the Congressional Review Act. If Congress is going to repeal something, it should be the Congressional Review Act rather than the Biden rule.

I recently accepted an invitation from Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy and the Pacific Legal Foundation to contribute to a symposium on “Ensuring Democratic Responsibility in the Administrative State.” I decided to begin with ideas that I borrowed from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft and former Justice Stephen Breyer.

In today's "point" post on this blog, Member Scholar Richard Pierce described how centralized regulatory review conducted by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is effective in ensuring the democratic accountability of the administrative state. In this companion post, I’ll offer a competing view of whether centralized review fulfills this objective in practice and what that means for the standards and safeguards designed to protect our health, safety, and lives.

At the request of Senior Policy Analyst James Goodwin, I posted a brief summary of an essay in which I described the advantages that I see in expanding the scope of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and combining its use of cost-benefit analysis with some doctrines that the U.S. Supreme Court has already adopted. I did so, and Goodwin suggested pairing it with a "counterpoint" post he subsequently prepared and also gave me the opportunity to rebut that counterpoint. I do so here.

Last week, the Biden administration took the next step on its important initiative to “broaden public engagement in the federal regulatory process,” announcing a set of proposed reforms and asking for more public feedback. As the announcement explains, these proposals reflect input the administration received during a public listening session and an open comment period it conducted last November — both of which I participated in along with several members of the public interest community. I was pleased to find that many of our recommendations were reflected in the proposals.

On February 8, conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives began their assault on the Clean Water Act with a hearing aimed at attacking the Biden administration’s rule to more clearly define the law's scope of protections. Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar Dave Owen, a law professor at the University of California College of the Law in San Francisco, was the only witness invited to fend off these dangerous attacks.

“Finish the job” was a fitting theme for President Joe Biden’s second State of the Union address. It provided a valuable oratorical perch from which Biden could both tout his impressive legislative successes of the last two years and call on Congress to pass laws that, to quote Biden himself, help build an economy and support a society “from the bottom up and the middle out.” But Biden needs to heed his own call to “finish the job.”

In their crusade against “wokeness,” congressional Republicans are taking aim at a Labor Department rule about pension plan investments. The rule’s transgression is apparently that it makes it easier for pension plans to consider how climate-related risks might affect a company’s bottom line. To avoid being woke, the GOP would apparently prefer pension managers to close their eyes to financial realities, sleepwalking their way through the climate crisis. The real fear, of course, is that more wide-awake investment might disfavor some of the GOP’s biggest corporate supporters.