Anyone who has run a business or put an addition on a house knows that regulations can be frustrating and expensive. The contract promotes the com-mon-sense notion that the benefits of government rules should outweigh the costs. Agencies would be required to prepare detailed economic studies comparing the advantages Gives saved, injuries reduced) against the drawbacks (burden on business, paperwork). But the effort to streamline regulations could end up bloating the bureaucracy. The reform bill wending its way through the House lists 23 specific criteria that federal agencies must follow to justify their rules. To meet those demands, the Environmental Protection Agency, to take one example, estimates it would have to double its staff and nearly triple how much it spends on paperwork and analysis, an added cost of $220 million. Of course, the Clinton administration’s EPA may be inflating those estimates. But in private, even the contract’s authors admit they don’t know the true impact of their hastily drafted bill. The net effect could be a law that fails its own cost-benefit analysis – and spends more for a government that does less.
