Do you like OMB Watch? Would you like to boost our fragile self-esteem? Then please vote for us in the Golden Dot Awards, presented annually for excellence in online campaigning by the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University.

OMB Watch has been nominated for Best Issue Advocacy Blog. The nomination is for all three of our blogs: Advocacy Blog, Budget Blog, and Reg•Watch.

Vote here: polc.ipdi.org/GoldenDots/voting.htm

(OMB Watch has the utmost respect for the other candidates and has vowed to run a clean campaign.)

Reg•Watch in Review is a biweekly email update of recent news from the regulatory world. Reg•Watch in Review highlights regulatory process issues and stories about environmental, product safety, workplace safety, and scientific integrity policy.

Preview today's edition here, or sign up below.

Big oil is knocking on the White House's door looking for sympathy over an EPA proposal to tighten the national standard for ozone, aka smog. On January 25, representatives from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute met behind closed doors with officials from EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). (Frank O'Donnell at the Blog for Clean Air has the full story.)

EPA's bid to tighten the ozone standard (from the current level of 0.084 ppm to somewhere between 0.070 and 0.075 ppm) has raised the ire of many industry representatives and anti-regulatory lobbyists like the National Association of Manufacturers. Detractors of the proposed ozone-reduction rule claim it would impose big costs on polluters and result in economic hardships for companies, employees, and consumers.

There are two big problems with that argument. First, the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from considering economic impact when regulating ozone. The Supreme Court has upheld the prohibition. EPA must use the best available science to set a standard that will protect public health, regardless of compliance costs.

Second, those who claim big costs are relying on a deeply flawed cost-benefit analysis prepared by EPA and OIRA. Cost-benefit analysis in public policy is rarely helpful, and EPA's ozone rule is a good example of just how ridiculous it can be.

For one of the options EPA is considering (0.070 ppm), the cost-benefit analysis concluded potential costs of $20 billion or potential benefits of $23 billion. How is anyone supposed to draw a meaningful conclusion from a $43 billion range?

Furthermore, ozone exposure can shorten lives. Therefore, reducing ozone pollution can help people live better and live longer. How can anyone put a price tag on that?

For a more detailed discussion, read a recent opinion column from OMB Watch available at OurFuture.org: "How Bush Undermines Government Regulation"

(For a really detailed discussion, read OMB Watch's report, Polluted Logic: How EPA's ozone standard illustrates the flaws of cost-benefit analysis.)

Check out a new opinion column by OMB Watch titled, "How Bush Undermines Government Regulation," available at the Campaign for America's Future website.

The column discusses how cost-benefit analysis in regulatory decision making can be a barrier to the promise of good government:

By using cost-benefit analysis and forcing regulators onto an economic playing field, detractors of government regulation have perverted its image into one of job loss and higher consumer prices.

Instead, we should look for the virtue in regulation — the ability of the government to keep workers safe, clean the environment, protect civil liberties, and save lives.

Read it here: "How Bush Undermines Government Regulation,"