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.