New Bill Would Impose Bureaucratic Obstacles on Independent Agencies Who says bipartisanship is dead? When it comes to de-regulation - couched in reactionary rhetoric about the job-killing perils of regulating banks and businesses - Democrats and Republicans always seem to find something to agree on. Remember the JOBS Act, for Jump Start Our Business Start Ups? It had nothing to do with jobs and everything to do with gutting long-standing regulations to protect investors. Earlier this year, even with election-year animosity piled on the usual antipathy, bipartisan majorities in Congress passed JOBS -- and the President signed it. Now, without a single hearing, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs appears poised to vote on a bi-partisan bill that would impose major new bureaucratic obstacles on independent regulatory agencies. The effect would be to weaken and delay rules across the regulatory landscape. Banks and big businesses would be the winners. Consumers, workers, investors, children, the environment and the broader economy would be the losers. First, some background. By design, independent agencies, unlike cabinet departments and executive agencies, do not report to the White House. They report to Congress, which deemed them independent precisely in order keep them insulated from undue political pressure from the executive branch. Independent agencies include the financial regulators - such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- as well as dozens of other agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. The Senate bill, called the "Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012," would undermine the independence of the independent agencies, and with it, their ability to do their jobs. Among its provisions, it would require the agencies to submit all significant proposed rules to the White House for vetting. That would introduce delays to an already slow process, and would give banks and businesses yet another place to lobby for favorable treatment. A negative review from the White House would result in further delays while the agency defended - and or altered - its proposals. Any negative White House views would also be fodder for industry groups to use in mounting legal challenges to rules that are eventually put in place. Six of the nation's top financial regulators have written a letter to the committee's chairman, Joseph Lieberman, and its Ranking member, Susan Collins, asking to be heard on the issue. Dozens of consumer and legal advocacy groups have voiced their opposition. And yet, there is no sign of a public hearing in the works, and disturbing signs that the plan is to quickly ready the awful bill for inclusion in must-pass legislation at year-end.