For years, the environmentalists have been fighting attempts in Congress to require cost-benefit tests.
Mr. Bush reversed course in October 2001, after determining that it met cost-benefit tests, and adopted the standard.
These liberals believe in expanding regulation even when it fails to meet any cost-benefit test and clearly drives jobs out of the United States.
One that would be a major break from current practice is to drop the idea that safety improvements must meet a cost-benefit test.
Congressional Republicans fought unsuccessfully last year to have such cost-benefit tests applied to all types of environmental regulations.
In the past, the Administration has strongly opposed broad legislation subjecting environmental regulations to this kind of cost-benefit test.
In the past, the Administration has opposed efforts in Congress to subject environmental standards to cost-benefit tests.
In the wealthiest nation on earth, a genuine cost-benefit test would never dictate unplugging a fully conscious, responsive patient from life support against her objections.
Ultimately, the Bush administration reinstated the Clinton standard, after determining that it met cost-benefit tests.
The budget office has the power to challenge and sometimes to block regulations if they appear to fail the cost-benefit test.
