Stupid Republican idea of the day

[adaher]

@eschereal

What does this even mean? Why the fuck would I care how much money “the economy” makes?

If GDP is rising, unemployment is falling. If GDP is falling, unemployment is rising.

If a regulation is justified, it can withstand a burden of proof requirement, which is essentially all this bill imposes. I would think the critical thinkers of the Ignorance Fighting Board would be all for a more rigorous process.

[Robot_Arm]

@adaher

If a regulation is justified, it can withstand a burden of proof requirement, which is essentially all this bill imposes. I would think the critical thinkers of the Ignorance Fighting Board would be all for a more rigorous process.

So in an effort to decrease regulations, the GOP has now imposed new regulations governing how regulations will be regulated.

Does their brilliance have no limit?

[running_coach]

@adaher

The government could still pass regulations, they’d just have to take more responsibility for them. I think we should all be able to agree that hugely expensive regulations shouldn’t just appear out of the bowels of the bureaucracy without any input from elected officials.

Are you aware that the vast majority of elected officials haven’t a clue what regulatory agencies do? (In terms of understanding the field)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@adaher

Hardly. This bill is needed to introduce accountability to the regulatory process.

If the rule stopped at “agencies must publish their cost/benefit analyses”, I would agree with you. But it doesn’t. It requires agencies to choose the cheapest option. That’s fucking stupid.

“Shall we build our Interstates with asphalt?”
“We can’t.”
“Why not?”
“Rubble is cheaper.”

[Smapti]

@adaher

Congress, even under the control of Democrats, never intended for the bureaucrats that no elected official has even heard of to write regulations that cost the economy billions of dollars.

So how come Democrats never passed a bill like this?

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Hardly. This bill is needed to introduce accountability to the regulatory process.

Oh, a lot more than that.

The primary way the bill would work is by making just about every step an agency takes on a major new rule subject to numerous legal challenges. It does that by defining major rules as ones that have direct costs of more than $100 million or indirect costs above $1 billion, or would have significant costs for just about anyone, including government. Then it requires that for any such rule, agencies must make public their cost-benefit analyses of the new regulation and choose the cheapest option.

Agencies already do cost analyses, but their primary legal responsibility is to choose the rule that offers the best safety for consumers, workers or investors. Also currently, not all of those decisions can be reviewed by courts. The Regulatory Accountability Act would open up all the elements of a new rule to judicial challenges, including the science and various expert analyses. The bill also does not define how to measure costs or benefits, leaving even that interpretation up to someone who might want to challenge a regulation.

[adaher]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If the rule stopped at “agencies must publish their cost/benefit analyses”, I would agree with you. But it doesn’t. It requires agencies to choose the cheapest option. That’s fucking stupid.

“Shall we build our Interstates with asphalt?”
“We can’t.”
“Why not?”
“Rubble is cheaper.”

We’re talking about cost/benefit, not just cost. Or you could be right, I’d have to see the text of the bill. It would be stupid to say they should public cost/benefit analyses and then just go with the cheapest, ignoring the benefit side of the equation.

I’d say you’re flat wrong about this, but the GOP has let me down too much for me to say for sure. Damn it.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

I love that you are white-knighting a bill without reading it. Especially since your batting average on stuff you claim to actually have read is so high.

[Truman_Burbank]

@adaher

Hardly. This bill is needed to introduce accountability to the regulatory process. Congress, even under the control of Democrats, never intended for the bureaucrats that no elected official has even heard of to write regulations that cost the economy billions of dollars.

Well, I’d much rather a bureaucrat write them, rather than the current practice of having the lobbyist do it.

[Merneith]

Ladies and Gentlemen - Ted Nugent:

As Ted Nugent-Sarah Palin Special Approaches, Nugent Mocks Those With Mental...

Not every flower can say love, but a rose can. Not every plant survives a
thirst, but a cactus can. Not every retard can read, but look at you go,
little buddy! Today, you should take a moment and send an encouraging
message to a fucked up friend, just as I have done. I don’t care if you
lick windows, or screw farm animals. You hang in there cupcake, because
you’re fucking special to me, and you’re my friend. Look at you smiling
at your phone, you crayon eating motherfucker.

Bonus LOLS - Ted is going on Sarah Palin’s show next week. Wanna bet that Mama Grizzly, mother of an actual Down Syndrome child, ignores his use of the word, “retard”?

[Chefguy]

@adaher

The government could still pass regulations, they’d just have to take more responsibility for them. I think we should all be able to agree that hugely expensive regulations shouldn’t just appear out of the bowels of the bureaucracy without any input from elected officials.

Right, they should instead continue be written by the lawyers for financial institutions, the NRA, oil companies and giant agri-business. :rolleyes:

[42fish]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

I love that you are white-knighting a bill without reading it. Especially since your batting average on stuff you claim to actually have read is so high.

Give adaher some credit: by skipping the actual reading (which, as you noted, he bollixes most of the time anyway) and going straight to the pontificating, he’s a much more efficient Hannity-wannabe.

[adaher]

As if any of you have read the bill yet. And it’s not like you can trust one media story about the bill’s cost/benefit requirements. They routinely mangle stuff like this.

Let them pass it, then you can find out what’s in it.

[running_coach]

@adaher

As if any of you have read the bill yet. And it’s not like you can trust one media story about the bill’s cost/benefit requirements. They routinely mangle stuff like this.

Let them pass it, then you can find out what’s in it.

How about they read it before voting on it.

Even better, let us see it before voting on it.

[Robot_Arm]

@adaher

Let them pass it, then you can find out what’s in it.

According to the link, the House has already passed it.

Of course, it could be changed by the Senate, or in reconciliation between the two houses, but I think it’s safe to say that the version passed by the House represents that body’s efforts and the thinking of those who voted in favor of the bill.

[foolsguinea]

@adaher

If GDP is rising, unemployment is falling. If GDP is falling, unemployment is rising.

Not true. Ever hear of a “jobless recovery”?

If a regulation is justified, it can withstand a burden of proof requirement, which is essentially all this bill imposes. I would think the critical thinkers of the Ignorance Fighting Board would be all for a more rigorous process.

You’re ignoring the fact that this law would demand that regulations all be dollars-based instead of safety-based. It’s changing the criteria of “justification,” and that should worry and even offend us.

[adaher]

We already use cost benefit analysis. That’s why we have cars, even though they cost 30,000 lives per year and 2 million injuries. We could make them safer, but at some point it just becomes too expensive to justify.

[foolsguinea]

Yes, and you are trying to drag the ruleset further in that direction by making a false equivalence.

[adaher]

I admit it’s not the best, but we do need better cost/benefit analysis than we have. In any case, I don’t think the bill can be labelled obviously a stupid Republican idea, because it attempts to address a very real issue.

[foolsguinea]

Actually, it’s an attempt to undo a couple of important fixes to our political process in the last century.

1. The Constitution made it too hard to pass laws, and especially good laws, if laws were going to be our sole system of regulating dangerous behavior. That’s why we have regulatory agencies, that can focus on a given field with serious expertise, and respond in a closer-to-timely fashion. The mopes who voted for this bill want regulators to be as useless and inefficient as legislators, which either completely misses the point of having regulatory agencies or is an attempt to undermine them.

2. The USA was founded as a business operation, period. Human rights and stuff like that came a hell of a lot later. I do mean hell, fields red with blood hell. One important innovation of USA lawmaking in the Twentieth Century was having the state act as a defender of the citizenry’s well-being, instead of merely a defender of the revenue stream of a few dozen rich men. That’s the “New Deal.” You want to take the “well-being of the people” and replace it with “the cheapest bid.” That’s “cost-benefit analysis” and it’s been around since about 1980. But it’s always been a cynical play to undo the New Deal premise that the well-being of the people means a tinker’s dam to the government (well, governments) of the United States of America.

This is bad law, following bad and sophistic rhetoric, and you have just been avoiding the point left and right.

There’s a saying we took from ancient Rome. It says, Salus populi suprema lex esto, not, Thrift over all.