Today, as promised, President Bush signed into law the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (H.R. 4040). You can read a summary of the bill's major provisions here.

Kudos to the president and to Congress for creating far-reaching reforms that are protective of consumers and will empower the Consumer Product Safety Commission to adequately police the marketplace.

While news surrounding the act is finished (thank goodness, after an excruciatingly long debate and congressional gestation), government officials must take many more steps before the intended changes are realized. Congress must follow through on its pledge to increase agency resources by passing appropriations bills, and the Executive Branch must write and enforce the new rules the act requires.

Last week, a group of EPA staffers wrote to administrator Stephen Johnson chiding him for the agency's recent decision to delay federal action on greenhouse gas emissions and the damaging climatic effects they cause. In July, EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (a relatively minor step in the rulemaking process) that solicits public comment on various regulatory options for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Strangely, the notice was accompanied by a raft of statements from senior officials across the Bush administration which ridicule the proposal and undermine it ultimate intent — to slow the effects of global climate change. Susan Dudley, head of the White House's regulatory clearinghouse, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the policy "cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration."

In their July 30 letter, the EPA staffers blasted Johnson for including the views of political officials (including the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy) while basically ignoring the hard work of EPA experts: "The way in which you subverted the work of EPA staff in your preamble statement on the merits of the supporting rationale for the ANPRM was as unprecedented as it was stunning to your staff and damaging to EPA's reputation for sound science and policy."

On one important point, the letter corners Johnson as a hypocrite. Johnson chose to include the views of officials in other agencies in the name of transparency. But when it comes to decision making on environmental policy, Johnson has been downright opaque over the past few months:

The decision to publish the critiques of other agencies in the name of "transparency" in decision-making is both disingenuous and counterproductive. A far more direct contribution would be made to the credibility and transparency of EPA decision-making if you cooperated with congressional requests for documents and hearings.

Johnson's refusal to cooperate with Congress isn't limited to the greenhouse gas rulemaking. Congressional committees have repeatedly requested information from Johnson on EPA's controversial revision to an air quality standard for smog and on his decision to refuse to let the state of California write its own rules to deal with climate change.

On all of these issues, internal documents and anecdotal evidence show that the White House exerted some level of pressure on Johnson in order to sway his opinion. And when the Bush White House weighs in on environmental policy, it unfailingly does so on behalf of polluters, not the public.

But when Congress subpoenas Johnson, Dudley, and others, they claim executive privilege. While they argue that these communications must be kept secret in order to ensure good government, EPA staffers say otherwise:

The professional staff of EPA has nothing to hide. In fact, contrary to your assertions of executive privilege, the free flow of policy recommendations would be aided by opening up all (not just selected) communications to public scrutiny.

Toward the end of the letter, the staffers say: "You were once one of us. We were proud when you were nominated as the first of us to occupy the Administrator's Office, and we expected great things. Our disappointment is profound."

A Saturday New York Times editorial criticized the Bush administration for its lack of progress on a much-needed new standard for crane and derrick safety:

The Bush administration generally prefers to fiddle, not regulate, as problems approach a crisis, but its failure to address accidents involving construction cranes is particularly hard to grasp. The administration isn't pandering to business interests. Both the building industry and labor groups have pressed for new standards and helped draft rules for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. That was four years ago. The rules are now parked at the Office of Management and Budget, where the White House seems content to let the clock run out without approving them.

OSHA has been working on the rule since at least July 2002. The majority of the work around composing the rule came to an end in July 2004. OSHA has made little progress in getting the rule out the door over the course of the last four years.

As the Times editorial points out, the crane industry supports the new rule. In March, the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association wrote to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao expressing their displeasure with the agency's inaction: "The lack of progress on this important safety and health standard remains a disservice to the entire industry affected by this Standard."

Meanwhile, high-profile crane accidents continue unabated, highlighting the urgent need for federal action. Two recent disasters in New York City and one in Houston are among the many crane accidents that kill scores of people each year.

The situation surrounding the crane rule isolates the major factor that has led to the Bush administration's dismal record on public health, safety, and environmental policy. On the issue of crane safety, the existence of a problem is undeniable and all the relevant stakeholders, including industry representatives and worker safety advocates, are lobbying the administration to take action.

But regulating to protect workers means embracing the idea that government can play a positive role in society. If a new federal regulation can save lives and prove valuable for businesses, maybe regulation isn't so bad after all. Maybe we shouldn't shrink government to a size small enough that we can drown it in a bathtub. That concept is anathema to many senior officials in the Bush administration who will pursue their anti-regulatory ideology no matter what.