The decider

Has decided to redouble his efforts to politicize science.

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.

Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued.

The Office of Management and Budget already has an elaborate process for the review of proposed rules. But in recent years, many agencies have circumvented this process by issuing guidance documents, which explain how they will enforce federal laws and contractual requirements. ...

In theory, guidance documents do not have the force of law. But the White House said the documents needed closer scrutiny because they “can have coercive effects” and “can impose significant costs” on the public. Many guidance documents are made available to regulated industries but not to the public. ...

Under the new White House policy, any guidance document expected to have an economic effect of $100 million a year or more must be posted on the Internet, and agencies must invite public comment, except in emergencies in which the White House grants an exemption.

A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!!!! a year. About what we spend every 12 hours in Iraq.

Seriously, though. Scientists have had a decent amount of influence on these agency regulations. Following this executive order, every regulation must go through a political appointee first, then pass the test of "geez, couldn't industry just be left alone?" and then they need to show how much it will "cost." Probably not the best use of taxpayer money. The last part is possibly the most dangerous, though. As anyone who's ever clicked on over to ExxonMobil TCSdaily knows, "cost" can take up all sorts of dimensions. People in Seattle are recycling? Well, that "costs" the city of Seattle hundreds of thousands of hours of productivity every year! [Long-time readers will know that I'm not kidding, such beancounterism is standard fare over at TCS and other libertarian-leaning websites.] And that's where Susan Dudley comes in handy:

The executive order was issued as White House aides were preparing for a battle over the nomination of Susan E. Dudley to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.

President Bush first nominated Ms. Dudley last August. The nomination died in the Senate, under a barrage of criticism from environmental and consumer groups, which said she had been hostile to government regulation. Mr. Bush nominated her again on Jan. 9.

With Democrats in control, the Senate appears unlikely to confirm Ms. Dudley. But under the Constitution, the president could appoint her while the Senate is in recess, allowing her to serve through next year.

Some of Ms. Dudley’s views are reflected in the executive order. In a primer on regulation written in 2005, while she was at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Northern Virginia, Ms. Dudley said that government regulation was generally not warranted “in the absence of a significant market failure.”

A quick perusal of Dudley's congressional testimony and writing indicates that she's a beancounter extraordinaire. Moreover, once this sort of thing takes hold, it breaks everything wide open to political manipulation; in effect achieving the opposite of what the executive order was ostensibly intended for. And that's not just a danger when dealing with the Bush administration; it'd be dangerous (from a scientist/environmentalist point of view) even if Al Gore were President.

Another alteration Bush is seeking is control over CAFE standards. This really isn't nearly as bad as the above alterations; let's face it, historically both Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) haven't been ideal when it comes to mileage standards. That's not to say I feel comfortable giving Bush this power, but I get the sense that deep down inside Bush actually wants Americans to consume less crude oil. It's just the way he goes about persuading industry and the public is utterly misguided. Yesterday he met with an interesting group of industry leaders. SAFE, the group in question, actually has a lineup of fairly good ideas involving hybrid vehicles and increasing fuel economy in trucks and busses as well as passenger cars. Sure, they kind of leave out public transportation, but at first glance they're better than what we've had so far whispering into Bush's ear.

But here again, he'll have the freedom to get rid of the 4% annual increase in efficiency if industry tells him they just can't get it done this year; maybe next. Given his track-record, it's doubtful he'll put his foot down and demand the changes he wants to effectively implement his policies.