Gas workers are now required to wear striped socks, thus eliminating one provision of the Clean Air Act and one from the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Which is why I am asking for specifics for how it would work-would merely being the two regs attached to the new reg be enough to eliminate them without any vetting whatsoever of their own worth, or would we have to have three separate hearings on three different regs(two for elimination and one for proposal) with the whole shebang needing to go through as a whole if the new reg is to be approved?
If a 5 year ban is bad, would a 2 year ban be okay?
Who said this:
“When I’m president of the United States, if you want to work for my administration, you can’t leave my administration and then go lobby.”
Not commenting on the other items, but maybe this policy would be alright on balance. There are definitely trade offs, but I don’t see this as automatically bad.
My bet is Trump leaves office feet first; heart attack and/or stroke, not assassination. Maybe he lingers on for a few weeks afterward ala Generalissimo Franco. Next year might even be a year of 3 presidents.
TPP would also increase our exports and is projected to create 128,000 American jobs.
Yeah, Obama banned lobbyists from his administration and banned former officials from becoming lobbyists for two years. The result was that people just changed their title from “lobbyist” to “policy advocate” or something like that.
The way it would work is every time an agency submits a rule for public comment they would also submit two rules that would be revoked for public comment. For example say the FDA wants to have a regulation that says only food that meets certain standards can be labeled humanely raised. They would bundle that with a proposal to eliminate the regulation that makes it illegal to call Turkey Ham, Ham Turkey and the regulation that makes it illegal to sell onion rings made with diced onions without a proper label.
Lobbying ban is a skin show. Hardly anyone even bothers to register as a lobbyist. They’re just consultants or policy advisors these days. Rules on lobbyists are already fine as they are, the problem - which neither party considers a problem - is that they’re not enforced whatsoever.
No matter who’s elected, there will never be significant regulations on lobbying in the US.
The difference is what I’ve already explained - and what you quoted.
Obama was establishing a rule that would only apply to people seeking jobs in his administration. He wasn’t targeting people in the outgoing Bush administration.
If the FDA bans a drug because testing reveals it has harmful side-effects, does it have to balance this new ban by removing the bans of two existing drugs that have harmful side-effects?
When the Air Force buys a new airplane, will it have to scrap two existing airplanes? When the FBI catches a criminal, will it have to release two criminals already in custody? When the Border Patrol catches one illegal immigrant crossing the border, will it have to let two others enter the country? When Congress lowers one tax, will it have to raise two other taxes?
I’m just trying to figure out how this “one step forward, two steps back” principle will be applied.
