Sen. Ted Kaufman (Dem., Delaware) explains the dynamics of federal regulatory agencies in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.
Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr. (“The Gulf Spill, the Financial Crisis and Government Failure,” op-ed, June 14) is correct in assigning blame to regulatory failure in both the recent financial crisis and the ongoing oil disaster in the Gulf. But he overgeneralizes in making two claims.
First, that Bush- and Obama-era regulatory failures share a common denominator. They do not. Regulatory failure occurs when regulators are captured by industry or, as was the case during the last administration, when regulators are told to back off and let the industry regulate itself. President Obama inherited a ticking time bomb in the Minerals Management Service and, regrettably, he was unable to diffuse it in time.
Second, effective regulation is not doomed merely because it is complex. The Food and Drug Administration is an example of one regulator that has achieved broad success, despite complexity. I have been a leading proponent of the need for Congress to enact simple, clear lines to help regulators succeed, but the success of simple or complex regulation requires individual regulators, empowered by the highest levels of the administration, to act in the public interest by steadfastly enforcing the rules.
Not to blame Bush or anything, but Obama inherited a ticking time bomb in the Minerals Management Service. Obama tried but was unable to diffuse it in time. After all, Obama is not the MacGyver of American politics.
According to Kaufman, there were no ticking time bombs in the Food and Drug Administration (that is, unless a crisis develops). Did Obama inherit a well-run FDA from the Bush administration? How is that even possible?
