# Trump signs "Make one reg, you gotta dump 2" executive order. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610 "2017-01-30T21:09:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/41 "2017-01-31T08:51:47Z")
Isn’t Trump’s EO different from laws in the other ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/42 "2017-01-31T09:13:12Z")
Isn’t Trump’s EO different from those other countries’ laws? They require eliminating one for one, keeping a static number of regs. His EO says two for one which will lead to a steadily decreasing number of regs until you only have one and can then add no more. Granted, that would take a long time and the order would likely be rescinded before then. Some have suggested that you can simply remove obsolete regs (of which there probably plenty) but if you do that then what’s the point? If a rule is obsolete then presumably it’s not a burden on anyone anyway, and going through the red tape of removing it would be more burdensome than not. ---
**Author:** ![GoodOmens](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@GoodOmens](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoodOmens)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/43 "2017-01-31T16:31:09Z")
I think the reason this order is rather absurd is that the NUMBER of regulations does not, in itself, tell you anything. Simply reducing the number of regulations as a goal, instead of eliminating the specific regulations that are a problem, accomplishes nothing but chaos. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/44 "2017-01-31T16:46:50Z")
> [@GoodOmens](#): > > I think the reason this order is rather absurd is that the NUMBER of regulations does not, in itself, tell you anything. Simply reducing the number of regulations as a goal, instead of eliminating the specific regulations that are a problem, accomplishes nothing but chaos. What I think would end up happening is that they will look for the most obsolete rules that will cause the least disruption in order to avoid that chaos. So all this EO would accomplish would be to add busy work and expense to the process. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/45 "2017-01-31T16:54:37Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > What I think would end up happening is that they will look for the most obsolete rules that will cause the least disruption in order to avoid that chaos. So all this EO would accomplish would be to add busy work and expense to the process. I think what the intention is is to get important regulations out of the way of industrialists. Put anti-reg people in charge of the departments, put another one in as The Director, then propose a new reg that doesn’t do anything important to get rid of two regs that get in the way of profit. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/46 "2017-01-31T16:56:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I have no doubt there are regulations that could be eliminated. In which case they should be eliminated whether or not new regulations are proposed. I’m still calling this a silly proposal, regardless of which other countries have something similar. > [@adaher](#): > > As much as I like the idea, it’s not going to work. Bill Clinton did this the right way: he put Al Gore in charge of the project and Gore, assisted by the appropriate regulatory agencies, cut a lot of obsolete regulations. It’s been 16 years since this issue has been revisited, so surely there’s a lot of fat on the books by now. So give Mike Pence or perhaps some of your business friends something to do. But that would take work. Salaries would have to be budgeted, thinking would need to be done. There would be arguments. This is the lazy way to do it. This is passing the buck, without passing any bucks. This is government by tantrum. I want it! I want it! I want it! Find a way to make it happen. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/47 "2017-01-31T17:04:34Z")
One problem which crops up quite often when US-based policy groups analyze laws and regulations from other countries is that they expect those other countries to have laws which are exact parallel of US ones. If the US has a “Regulation on the making of green gadgets” and another country has a “Law on the design, testing and making of gadgets”, those groups are likely to complain that the second country doesn’t regulate the making of green gadgets, as they miss the existing law due to the nonidentity of titles. And now this sounds like the US may be getting laws called “Regulation on the making of green gadgets and the sound emitted by traffic lights”. It’s a twofer, right? > [@sleestak](#): > > Well, if the Jr High School kids are Canada, Spain, Portugal, the U.K and Australia. All of which have all at some point instituted similar rules. [Linky](https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/reg-stats). Spain has no such thing. What we have is a requirement that any new regulation must indicate how it relates to any preexisting higher regulations or affects related regulations at the same or lower level. For example, the Income Tax Tables published every year replace the previous year’s Tables and complement the still-standing Income Tax Law, and they must actually indicate this even though it’s already known to work that way. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/48 "2017-01-31T17:39:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I have no doubt there are regulations that could be eliminated. In which case they should be eliminated whether or not new regulations are proposed. I’m still calling this a silly proposal, regardless of which other countries have something similar. Which is why the US pre-Trump had agency processes to review old regulations and required OMB (Office of Management and Budget) to review financial costs and benefits (the benefit piece is left out of this EO) of new rules before they were signed. The fault line for the discourse on this seems to be along opinions about controlling/reversing regulatory creep. My issue is more like yours and Bricker’s. I wouldn’t oppose strengthening current processes for regulatory rule making review. An amateurish EO that demonstrates a profound ignorance of the process being adjusted is something I oppose. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/49 "2017-01-31T19:25:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I have no doubt there are regulations that could be eliminated. In which case they should be eliminated whether or not new regulations are proposed. I’m still calling this a silly proposal, regardless of which other countries have something similar. As always, it’s all about how this gets implemented. If this does nothing but make people think about the massive amount of regulations out there and look at reducing some of it, while they are busy trying to enforce more of them, then I think it’s a good thing. But I agree, it sounds dumb on it’s face. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/50 "2017-01-31T20:12:13Z")
Is it even legally enforceable, or is it too ambiguous and vague? Is there even a precise legal definition of “rule”? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/51 "2017-01-31T21:22:45Z")
What I’m looking forward to, is when the GOP Congress passes laws that need to be fleshed out with regulations in order for them to really have meaning and be enforceable. Then the agencies come back and say, “sorry, we couldn’t find any regs to cut, so no can do.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/52 "2017-01-31T21:39:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > What I’m looking forward to, is when the GOP Congress passes laws that need to be fleshed out with regulations in order for them to really have meaning and be enforceable. Then the agencies come back and say, “sorry, we couldn’t find any regs to cut, so no can do.” I don’t think it works that way. The agency that offers the added regulation is the same agency that picks the two to dump-its a package deal. BTW, any chance of an agency trying the “Sorry, no waste here to delete” is slim to nada-Trump put those agency heads in, and they will do as they are told and cut regs whether they are any useless ones or not. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/53 "2017-01-31T21:47:28Z")
If, for example, the EPA starts throwing out important clean water rules, can they be sued for not fulfilling their mandate or some such? ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/54 "2017-01-31T22:52:25Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > What I’m looking forward to, is when the GOP Congress passes laws that need to be fleshed out with regulations in order for them to really have meaning and be enforceable. Like say a replacement for ACA. Implementation took huge amounts of rule making. Good luck finding the other half, or so, of cuts needed under this EO. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/55 "2017-01-31T22:54:11Z")
So which two did Trump eliminate when he instituted this one? ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/56 "2017-02-01T21:53:56Z")
Can one agency recommend deleting rules from another agency? Cause otherwise, this penalizes agencies that have been trying to keep their regulations tight. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/57 "2017-02-01T22:14:32Z")
I’m a libertarian and I think this is a terribly stupid way to handle thinning regulations. Just because there was a regulation creating a new class of craft alcohol producer in December doesn’t mean that two old alcohol regulations need to be tossed (actually there are more that could be thinned) or conversely just because they won’t create a new class this year doesn’t mean there aren’t regulations that need to be thinned. I think industry and effected groups could go through each set of regulations and thin out ones that either don’t make sense or are unnecessary. An example is that comes to my mind is that the TTB requires padlocks to be used to secure doors into distilleries but fire code will not allow you to pad lock emergency exits. Obviously these conflict and the pad lock rule could be ditched since most distilleries are granted exemptions any how. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/58 "2017-02-01T23:15:39Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So which two did Trump eliminate when he instituted this one? Ha. That was exactly the same thing I thought. I rather liked [Matt Levine on this topic](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-24/metrics-fees-and-regulations) > [@Matt Levine](#): > > A theory of regulation. > > I am working on a tentative theory of regulation. It goes like this: > > 1. There are two kinds of regulations: custom regulations and bulk regulations. > 2. A custom regulation is designed to accomplish a particular goal. You want people to do something, so you write a rule mandating that they do it and punishing them if they don’t. For instance, if you want U.S. companies to keep jobs in the U.S., you might write a rule to mandate that, and to “impose a ‘very major’ border tax on companies that move jobs outside the U.S.” That is an example of a custom regulation, and it is good because it keeps jobs in the U.S. > 3. Bulk regulations are the kind that you buy by the yard, ones that you measure by quantity rather than purpose. They don’t have a purpose, really; they are just generic “red tape.” These are the regulations that presidents frequently announce they will cut in half, or freeze with an executive order. They’re the regulations that come not from a reasoned desire to achieve a particular goal, but from a pure impulse to regulate. Bulk regulations are bad because they prevent businesses from doing business-y things without accomplishing anything good. > 4. All regulations are custom regulations. > 5. All discussion of “regulation” is about bulk regulations, which do not exist. On the other hand, it’s not totally clear to me that this will necessarily be terrible. A major externality of our current legislative and administrative system is complexity creep. Even if a given law or regulation is good in a vacuum, the totality of them can be so overwhelmingly complicated that it means that it’s effectively impossible to actually comply with all of them. It results in a very high barrier to entry in many fields, since only really large players can afford the compliance and legal costs. Having an incentive to go look for regulations that can be excised to make a new one _might_ mean we get rid of some regulations that aren’t worth the amount of effort we put into understanding, complying with, and enforcing them. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/59 "2017-02-02T15:31:35Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Ha. That was exactly the same thing I thought. > > I rather liked [Matt Levine on this topic](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-24/metrics-fees-and-regulations) > > On the other hand, it’s not totally clear to me that this will necessarily be terrible. A major externality of our current legislative and administrative system is complexity creep. Even if a given law or regulation is good in a vacuum, the totality of them can be so overwhelmingly complicated that it means that it’s effectively impossible to actually comply with all of them. It results in a very high barrier to entry in many fields, since only really large players can afford the compliance and legal costs. > > Having an incentive to go look for regulations that can be excised to make a new one _might_ mean we get rid of some regulations that aren’t worth the amount of effort we put into understanding, complying with, and enforcing them. Or you institute action specifically to look for said regulations without initiating a vague, unworkably simplistic, dangerous, and solely politically-motivated regulation. That way, you can _appear_ to your gullible supporters that you’re solving the problem without actually solving the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/60 "2017-02-02T15:37:20Z")
No amount of stupidity in a leader is too outlandish or impossible anymore. All I can say is, thank the gods that EO’s are easily revocable by a new President. Now all we have to do is to ensure that Wannabe-President-for-Life Donald is slapped out of office with all alacrity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610.md?page=4)