# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/81 "2017-02-07T15:10:06Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > That is really, really stupid. > There may be a splendid reason to get rid of a regulation; but on each case’s merits, not as a one-for-two deal. Depending how cute people want to get, you can create a new regulation that includes two other regulations that you eliminate. As long as the net cost of the new regulations do not exceed the old ones (and frankly most regulations don’t cost money, they are guidance that clarify existing legislation), you can pass a lot of the more mundane stuff. I understand that this Executive order makes it look like Trump is doing something (sticking it to the Washington bureaucrats) but the white house already has the ability to stop regulations without a 2 for 1 rule. The whole of the executive branch works for the white house and the heads of almost all the agencies are nominated by the white house. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/82 "2017-02-07T15:27:27Z")
I’ve yet to see any defense of this executive order that would lead me to not treat it the same way I’d treat, and I’d hope every one else would treat, an EO that stated _For every new stop sign, or other traffic control device, installed two must be removed_. CMC fnord! ---
**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:** [February 7, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/83 "2017-02-07T16:42:26Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > If anyone is interested, the WH has put out guidance on the EO: > > [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/02/interim-guidance-implementing-section-2-executive-order-january-30-2017](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/02/interim-guidance-implementing-section-2-executive-order-january-30-2017) “Would you mind jumping through this hoop? Not just yet, mind you-First we have to set it on fire and give it a quick spin.” Well, this answers that “Can we just get rid of a couple of regs that don’t matter anymore?”, because the 2 deregs have to offset the cost of the new reg. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/84 "2017-02-07T16:58:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Depending how cute people want to get, you can create a new regulation that includes two other regulations that you eliminate. As long as the net cost of the new regulations do not exceed the old ones (and frankly most regulations don’t cost money, they are guidance that clarify existing legislation), you can pass a lot of the more mundane stuff. May not be that simple. Acoording to the WH memo > [@](#): > > _ **Q: How should costs be measured?** _ > > A: Costs should be measured as the opportunity cost to society. OMB Circular A-4 defines this concept. You can read OMB Circular A-4 [here](https://www.nap.edu/read/11534/chapter/10) which(if you scroll down to page 280) says > [@](#): > > “Opportunity cost” is the appropriate concept for valuing both benefits and costs. The principle of “willingness-to-pay” (WTP) captures the notion of opportunity cost by measuring what individuals are willing to forgo to enjoy a particular benefit. In general, economists tend to view WTP as the most appropriate measure of opportunity cost, but an individual’s “willingness-to-accept” (WTA) compensation for not receiving the improvement can also provide a valid measure of opportunity cost. There are 2 more pages elaborating on this, so I would recommend a stiff drink before starting in. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2017, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/85 "2017-02-07T19:14:14Z")
BTW, I would greatly appreciate it if someone could read through those 3 pages about “Opportunity Cost To Society” and boil it down for us non-bureaucrats. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/86 "2017-02-08T18:57:22Z")
And now he’s being sued over it. [http://thehill.com/regulation/318457-trump-sued-over-1-in-2-out-regulations-order](http://thehill.com/regulation/318457-trump-sued-over-1-in-2-out-regulations-order) > [@](#): > > The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Communications Workers of America and Public Citizen sued Trump on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block the so-called 1-in-2-out executive order. > > The left-leading groups argue Trump’s Jan. 30 order exceeds his authority under the Constitution and will block important health, safety and environmental protections without taking the benefits of those rules into account. > > Chris Shelton, president of the Communications Workers of America, said workers shouldn’t be required to “trade off one set of job, health and safety protections in order to get protection from another equally dangerous condition.” > > “This order means that the asbestos workplace standard, for example, could be discarded in order to adopt safeguards for nurses from infectious diseases in their workplaces,” Shelton said in a statement. Here’s the actual filing: > **[2-8-17-Public-Citizen-Complaint.pdf](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3456917/2-8-17-Public-Citizen-Complaint.pdf)** > > 263.26 KB I think this is the key argument > [@](#): > > Rulemaking in compliance with the Executive Order’ > s “1-in, 2-out” requirement > cannot be undertaken without violating the statutes > from which the agencies derive their > rulemaking authority and the Administrative Procedu > re Act (APA). Bricker? Do they have a valid argument? ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/87 "2017-02-10T04:16:40Z")
> [@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. [ Firstly, the rules in Aus work exactly the way you would expect from Jr High School kids. Sensible rules with minimal impact are eliminated, inane rules with wide impact are implemented. Secondly, there are fundamental differences in the executive systems, which make direct comparison meaningless. So although you may wish to take Australia as an example of what not to do, it would be a mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Aggregator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/13edae/32.png) [@Aggregator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aggregator)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/88 "2017-02-10T21:17:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > BTW, I would greatly appreciate it if someone could read through those 3 pages about “Opportunity Cost To Society” and boil it down for us non-bureaucrats. I’m very curious how they quantify health and life in the “Willingness to Pay”. I’m sure Trump is able to pay a whole lot more for his life than little ole me. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/89 "2017-02-11T15:26:13Z")
> [@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) Yes, Canada has a federal law that regulates regulations: [_Red Tape Reduction Act_](http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/r%2D4.5/page-1.html#h-4). However, it is quite different from this EO, as near as I can tell (I’m not at all familiar with the language of American federal EO’s and regulations, so necessarily tentative). The first significant difference is that the Act only applies to regulations which impose an “administrative burden” on “businesses”, which are defined terms: [QUOTE=s. 2] _ **administrative burden** _ means anything that is necessary to demonstrate compliance with a regulation, including the collecting, processing, reporting and retaining of information and the completing of forms. (_fardeau administratif_) _ **business** _ means a person or entity that engages in commercial activities in Canada, other than for a public purpose. (_entreprise_) [/QUOTE] (my underlining) That provision has to be read with the following provision in the Preamble: > [@preamble](#): > > Whereas the one-for-one rule must not compromise public health, public safety or the Canadian economy; And then there’s the meat of the Act: > [@](#): > > **Purpose** > > **4** The purpose of this Act is to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses. > > **Control of administrative burden** > > **5** (1) If a regulation is made that imposes a new administrative burden on a business, one or more regulations must be amended or repealed to offset the cost of that new burden against the cost of an existing administrative burden on a business. So here’s my comments on the Act: • it’s a one-for-one rule, not a twofer, so it doesn’t mean that the body of regulations will gradually reduce; • it only applies to administrative burdens, not the substance of regulations; • the Act is just about the paperwork the business has to file to **show compliance** with the regulations, not the **cost of complying** with those regulations; • this is also supported by the preamble’s statement that nothing in the Act can compromise public health, public safety or the Canadian economy. Regulators cannot be forced to choose between different public health, safety etc. regs because of the one-for-one principle; • that means that you would never have the situation of the regulatory agency having to choose between (1) repealing “Regulation for Dangerous Substance A” and “Regulation for Dangerous Substance B” in order to implement a new “Regulation for Dangerous Substance C”, or (2) foregoing any new regulation of Dangerous Substance C; • the Act doesn’t apply at all to the operations of federal regulatory agencies, in the way that the EO does. The EO appears to require US federal agencies to demonstrate **internal** cost-savings and economic analysis of how the repeal and replace will reduce the costs of the federal agency; • the Canadian law is just about reducing administrative costs for businesses, which are expressly defined not to include public bodies. In summary, the Canadian Act is designed to reduce the _ **administrative** _ cost for a business of showing compliance with a regulation. It has no effect at all on the ability of a regulatory agency to introduce a new substantive regulation, which could impose significant _ **operational** _ costs on a business in order to comply with the substance of the regulation. So, beyond the fact that both the EO and the Red Tape Act deal with regulations, no, there’s not much in common between them. (Not intended as legal analysis, of course, but just to comment on a matter of public interest.) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/90 "2017-02-12T17:14:54Z")
And the court challenge has begun, alleging the EO is both unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute. [https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.dcist.com/amp/articles/create%3Farticle\_id%3D589b5b9eada6e21d1227f436?client=safari](https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.dcist.com/amp/articles/create%3Farticle_id%3D589b5b9eada6e21d1227f436?client=safari) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/91 "2017-02-12T18:18:24Z")
> [@XT](#): > > How will this work when we have to go into negative regulations?? 😛 When the number of regulations has been reduced to zero, the objective desired by the rubes will have been achieved. By that time Pruitt will have shut down the EPA ([this principle is already underway](http://www.npr.org/2017/02/10/514566896/epa-staff-pulled-from-alaska-summit-after-trump-team-orders)) and Betsy DeVos will have shut down the public school system. All that remains at that point is for the last government employee to turn off the lights on the way out. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > And the court challenge has begun, alleging the EO is both unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute. > > [https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.dcist.com/amp/articles/create%3Farticle\_id%3D589b5b9eada6e21d1227f436?client=safari](https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.dcist.com/amp/articles/create%3Farticle_id%3D589b5b9eada6e21d1227f436?client=safari) Some “so-called judge” will probably rule against it. :rolleyes: It’s hard to be a good president when there are so many danged libruls always bringing up “laws” and “logic” and stuff. As Andy Borowitz points out, even the Constitution is being very unfair to The Donald. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610/92 "2017-02-12T19:31:03Z")
I think this particular Executive Order makes it very clear that Trump doesn’t actually care about what he is doing. He only cares about putting on an appearance of activity in order to appease his supporters. ``` The EO that's getting the most attention, the travel ban, is ALSO an example of how Trump actually doesn't care. He chose the seven countries, by his own admission, by copying the list that the Obama administration used, when they expanded vetting procedures (thus putting the lie to Republican claims that Obama weakened such regs). He didn't choose because his people investigated and found that those countries were especially dangerous according to intelligence reports. Again, it's all a show to Trump. ``` Many other EO’s have been entirely ineffective, but again, he doesn’t care, because it’s all about appearing to act. His order telling enforcers to minimize penalties for the ACA pending it’s repeal, was empty, because it was non-specific, saying they should “do what they can.” It SOUNDS good to fans, but since the law is the law, it’s like telling police only to enforce the laws they have to. They have to enforce all the laws, so nothing changes. Many of the other orders are similarly vague or only initiate investigatory committees. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-signs-make-one-reg-you-gotta-dump-2-executive-order/778610.md?page=4)