If you've made it this far, you'll probably enjoy the whole piece: niskanencenter.org/how-to-fix-t.... Questions? Email me: amechanick [at] niskanencenter [dot] org. 9/9

This is better than blunter reforms, like PRA repeal or raising the "persons" threshold. Presidents need visibility into information collections (just like spending & regulations). The PRA has virtues that the inevitable PRA replacement executive order likely wouldn't. 8/9

Here's the fix: Replace notice and comment with more useful public input. Streamline and eliminate reviews. That allows OMB and agencies to focus on high-impact reviews, and do reviews fast (5-10 days). The result: less unnecessary paperwork *and* agencies that get more done. 7/9

But OMB review can be valuable, especially for stopping duplicative collections, coordinating across agencies, improving regulations (see pic), and ensuring that the White House has visibility into collections (like spending/regs). We don't want to lose that entirely. 6/9

After an information collection is developed, it takes 9 more months *on average* to get into the field. Despite two public comment periods, more than 90% get no comments (delay for no benefit!). The result? Agencies collect less info, get less done, and make worse decisions. 5/9

But the law that Congress enacted, and amended in 1995, is an overly-procedural mess. Agencies are forced to jump through unnecessary hoops. And OMB's attempts to make the PRA more flexible have had only limited effect, highlighting the PRA's flaws. 4/9

In the 1970s, Congress *abolished* OMB review of many agencies' information collections. Did it work? No. Both Democrats and Republicans hated the new system, and within a few years, they enacted the PRA to impose more order. 3/9

The PRA started as a New Deal effort to boost efficiency and push back on myopic/captured agencies by having OMB review information collections. (The same concerns previously led to OMB review of agency spending, and later led to OMB review of agency regulations). 2/9