Do you think that regulators just make stuff up? Like, “Oh, chemical xyz must be less than 1 part per trillion, for no reason other than I say so.”
Most regulations are put in after the fact. After people have been sickened, after environment has been damaged, after property has been destroyed, to tr to prevent that from occurring again. Very few regulations, if any, are proactive, in that there was no concern or harm from an action before it was regulated.
Would you get rid of fire code, because you haven’t seen a fire recently, health department because there hasn’t been an outbreak of e. coli recently, limits of lead and arsenic in the water supply, because your children don’t seem to have become mentally retarded or sickened by the water they drink?
Which regulations, exactly do we feel that we can get rid of? I certainly do not feel that all regulations are or should be held sacred. If a regulation doesn’t make sense, if a regulation does more harm then good, then make a case for it. Make a case that that regulation is a problem. People will listen, and if your case is good, then that regulation may be changed or eliminated.
In all of these threads, in all of the political discussion, I never see specifics, I just see “regulation bad, freedom good!”
Ah yes, just what we need even more grid lock in Washington. Now in order to pass any new regulation you will have to fight not only those who are against the regulation you are trying to pass, but those that were in favor of the regulations you were trying to get rid of.
Were this thing actually implemented, what would probably happen is that there would be that legislators would identify pile of industries that were once heavily regulated but are now irrelevant, say the whale oil industry, and use these as a go to stack to avoid the requirement.
Cabinet, cabinet, what’s the difference, right? I mean, it’s all going to be huuuuuuuge!
This sounds like the kind of idea I would come up with as a college sophomore at about 1:42 in the morning when I’m really, really, really high and have at least 3 shots of tequila in me. Then the next morning, I’m vaguely confused and completely embarrassed when I find the notes scribbled on a napkin.
Dude. Duuuuuuuuuude. Let me grab a napkin. We gotta write this down…
I don’t see who is going to like this policy. People who oppose all government regulations on principle are going to hate the idea of enacting new regulations. People who support all government regulations on principle are going to hate the idea of having existing regulations repealed. This is the equivalent of “abortions for some, miniature American flags for others” - Trump is trying to appeal to the simple-minded people on both sides of the issue.
Meanwhile people who actually think about things are going to that this a ridiculous policy; regulations should be judged by the quality not their quantity. Good regulations should be enacted and bad regulations should be repealed without counting up how many of each there are.
A while back, I decided I would get rid of one of my t-shirts every time I got a new one. For a while, the choices were easy - old, ratty shirts I never wore - but then when all I had left were shirts I really liked, or had sentimental value, or that I wore all the time, I jettisoned the rule.
I suspect, even if Trump’s rule were to ever get off the ground at all, it would peter out similarly.
Speaking as someone who has worked for regulators: regulators don’t want more regulation; they want more effective regulation. Sometimes this means adding a new regulation but often this means changing the existing regulations to close loopholes or to take account of new circumstances or technologies.
Regulators don’t want tons of regulations anymore than the people they’re regulating do. They have to keep track of all of them (and all the interactions between them) and they have to enforce them; increased numbers of regulations tend to create resource strain, which results in less effective regulation.
There will inevitably be regulations which become outdated or don’t work as intended which will need to be overhauled or scrapped, but Trump’s proposition is simplistic and idiotic.
I’m pretty sure someone else proposed this, but they only made it 1 for 1. So this is Trump once again going bigger, like he did with immigration (the wall) and his tax plan (to the point that even conservatives agree it will balloon the deficit).
Another such gimmick was that every bill had to list what part of the Constitution gave Congress the authority to act.
Your cite is from May 2015. In October 2015, we had an election, and the Conservative party lost in a bigly way. Stupid things like this were part of the reason why.
The quoted Tony Clement (aka “Gazebo Tony”, for his outrageous pork-barrel spending in his own riding) is no longer a minister of the crown; his leader at the time, Stephen Harper, quit parliament in a huff after his loss, and is now earning his millions as a 'consultant" for private business.
Agencies do not simply issue regulations out of thin air. They have a statutory requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act to follow strict rulemaking procedures, including publication of proposed regulations and allowing for public comments, and are subject to judicial review. Agency regulations as set out in the CFR are not in any way promulgated the way you characterize it, and certainly in no way similar to how the President issues executive orders.
Trump’s proposal would create a mess of the APA’s framework, and may require judicial clarification or even a statutory amendment to actually implement.
All that would need to be done is for the promulgating agency to identify the two other regulations it is changing in addition to the proposed regulation. The total change to the CFR could then be open for the comment period. If one of the proposed regulatory recessions is found to be vital then put the rule change on hold until another one is found to be rescinded. If a rule change is sufficiently vital then the process could be expedited. The current process is already byzantine enough and there is nothing sacred about it.
Since the whole point of the rule would be to allow fewer regulations it may slow down the regulation propagation process and allow the regulators to spend more time on each regulations.
If you had read my cite you would know that the canadian proposal was passed with the support of all the major parties and only one MP voted against it. It was my understanding is the reason the Conservatives lost was the new PM had a famous father and looks good with his shirt off, but of course I don’t follow Canadian politics closely. I’m glad to hear Harper is doing so well, he seems nice.
All bills must be 100 pages or less, 10 point font, double spaced.
It takes into account how Republicans howled about how long the Affordable Care Act was (“Its over 2000 pages! Why is health care so complicated??”). Or this suggestion:
No proposed law can take into account the number of deaths it may cause
Because of course GOD himself decides who lives or dies, and why are you playing GOD?? Also, it ensures that businesses do not have to worry about the consequences of their actions as long as they feel it benefits them. And speaking of which, how about this law:
All businesses are mandated to put profit first
Might as well get around the sketchy hippie-owned businesses that prizes being good to employees or customer services. They must think about profits! Nothing else! Shareholders are #1! If a business must fire 500 people to make 2 cents more in profit per widget, then they must fire 1000! If there’s a loophole that allows them to force people to work 14 hour days without overtime, then the business MUST take advantage of it!
What other gimmicks would you like? How about one that says schools must start each day with a prayer to somebody named Jesus, because hey, “Jesus” is a Spanish name so its not strictly a Christian thing, you could pray to your bad hombre Jesus Hernandez instead! Or cats and dogs must be baptized? How about only marriages performed in a building with a steeple and cross on it is valid, because you can totally have a secular building with a steeple and a cross is simply the joining of two perpendicular planks, its carpentry, not Christian.