Regulations are different than laws. Laws are created by the legislature and regulations are created by government agencies. Most laws designate an agency to administer the program created by the law. Agencies then issues regulations about how the program is to be run. So there is nothing at all unconstitutional about this idea and since most government agencies are part of the executive branch the President could do this whenever he wanted.
An example would be the Congress authorized a school lunch program to purchase health lunches for the school kids below a certain income threshold and designates the Department of Education to run it. Then the Education department sets regulations as to what schools who want to participate in the program can serve and still be called healthy. They would regulate such things as amount of sodium per meal, number of vegetable servings per meal, allowable beverages, etc.
What this rule would do is to force the agencies to make priorities when issuing new regulations. For example if the school lunch program wanted to ban gluten in school lunches they would have to ask themselves if doing so was worth getting rid of two previous regulations. That way each agency has an incentive to only pass regulations that are important and to monitor old regulations to see which ones are no longer needed.
Those crazy right wingers up in Canada have a law that says one regulation must be repealed for every new one generated and the sky has not fallen up there.
They do?
I’ve never heard of it. Could puddleglum provide a cite?
If you eliminate 2 for every one you pass…won’t you eventually have a negative number of regulations?
The list of rules and proposed rules currently has more than 81,000 pages in it. I think we won’t have to worry about that for a while.
They dialed it back to “one-for-one” and
More on their ONE-for-one swap, from your own link:
So it’s still only one-for-one, they have to prove that there will be actual savings, and they can’t cut regs for health, safety or the environment-absolutely nothing like what Trump spewed out. Did you even read your own link?
So, if we have to regulate to remove arsenic from our water supply, we would have to remove the regulations that prohibit lead and cyanide?
This is what doesn’t make sense to me. If the two previous regulations are unneeded, they should be gotten rid of even without adding a new one. If the new regulation is wise, why should it be dependent on removing two others? Suppose a perfectly run agency has 100% great and wise regulations. Why can’t it add a new one equally as valid?
The whole thing is hopelessly naïve and overly simplistic. If there is a good new regulation to add, do it. If there are old ones that no longer make sense, eliminate them. To make one action dependent on the other is moronic.
No, just a single regulation which does absolutely everything, and must be replaced in toto whenever something gets changed.
Needless to say, it would be an absolute dog’s breakfast.
Now, combine that with Trumpy’s recent statement that he plans on eliminating 70 to 80% of all regulations.
Its exactly what I said it was. Trumps proposal is not a finished rule. It may have carve outs just like Canada’s.
Finesse is what Trump uses on his hairpiece.
What are the incentives of a regulator? They are all on the side of over regulation.
Say you are regulating what can go into tap water. If you make a mistake that allows a harmful agent into the water then you are the bastard responsible for poisoning children. If you make a mistake that bans a substance that is completely benign there are no repercussions at all. All it does is make tap water a little more expensive and no one would ever connect that with you or your agency. There is no upside from an agency perspective for removing old and outdated regulations.
If a perfectly run agency has 100% great and wise regulations it is an awful idea, however if Trump has a magic eight ball that always tells him exactly which regulations are good and bad, it is a great idea. Both scenarios are equally likely.
To someone who doesn’t want any restrictions, any regulation is “over regulation”.
As the world gets more complicated and we need new regulations for new technologies and situations, this makes a lot of sense! After all, can’t you just completely remove all clean water and air standards now?
No? Then welcome to reality, where the world is a lot more complicated than simplistic schemes like this.
You lose me right there. The incentive of a regulator is to protect the public. If a regulation protects the public, it should be adopted providing the benefit/cost ratio makes sense. Industry has plenty of time to make comments on proposed rules prior to them becoming final, those that are too onerous will be restudied and perhaps congressmen will get involved. I think your well is poisoned from the start by a ridiculous assumption about how bureaucracy works.
Trump’s proposal (which isn’t new) is based off of the assumption that, somewhere buried deep within the bureaucratic code, are needless federal rules such as *“Airlines must serve salted peanuts in bags that are no wider than 2.5 inches and and no longer than 4.5 inches.”
*
Now, maybe such rules do exist, and can be eliminated with no adverse effect. But if such meaningless regulations aren’t there, then, yeah, one day we’ll end up with a harmful act such as “Drinking water no longer needs to be sterilized!”
When his stated goal is to get rid of 70 to 80% of all regulations, I can guarantee it will get much worse than that.