I have a coworker that seriously suggested this many months ago.
He also believes that you can’t pick a president based on record because nothing prepares you for that job. Janitor is just as qualified as a governor. Can’t judge people based on what they say, have to wait until they do something.
I’m not sure why he backed Gary Johnson since apparently nothing you’ve ever said or done in the past is relevant.
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.
Money shot:
It is actually not a bad idea. In many cases people get so focused on the ‘new’ thing that they don’t look at already existing things. So, if you want something new, find something old that isn’t relevant anymore and kill it.
I suspect that we can use a few less regulations.
Slee
Why, this is Bizarro World, nor am I out of it. (with apologies to Marlowe’s Mephistophilis).
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.
I’d like to point out that law was enacted under a Conservative government.
…it doesn’t matter. I’m just pointing out that the administration (and like-minded people) will use this and similar policies to create a false equivalence. This is a Trump regime tactic. We’ve seen it used a few times already: and they will use it over and over again.
Cite.
An equally important part:
Any of that in this executive order?
That is a linky. It is not, however, a linky that supports your claim. The word “Canada” and “Australia” do not appear anywhere on that page. Did you mean to offer a different linky?
That graph is, on your first linky, captioned:
That graph appears to track how much money is spent for the entire economy, adjusted for inflation, on regulations. It does not track per capita (our population has about doubled in that time), nor does it track economic growth (pull up this page and set the slider on the GDP growth to “Max” to see a graph that has almost precisely the same curve as your regulatory chart).
Sure, there are some regulations that are outdated. But since 1960, we’ve removed lead from almost all public products, installed seatbelts and other safety equipment in cars in a massive and successful effort to reduce automobile fatalities, vastly improved workplace safety, and cleaned up countless environmental disasters. Without one more chart–the economic and social benefits of regulation–your chart is completely meaningless.
I doubt if Trumpo thought of it, nor cares very much. It has all the hallmarks of GOP Reaganite-Tea Party nuttiness, the sort of thing those be-suited clowns marked down as essential in their earnest newsletters, funded by libertarian think-tanks, during the long Obama years of tyranny.
Seriously, can’t you imagine Dr. Ron Paul delivering a three hour lecture on the goodness of this proposal ?
Apparently, there are UK and Canadian equivalents that are currently in place and which aren’t (known to be) destroying their nations.
Of course, I would expect that their versions were written with more clarity and finesse than ours. This is the sort of thing where the devil may well be in the details.
It should also be noted that one of the measures of success being applied to the UK and Canadian programs is how much money businesses have saved. But, we should note that a nuclear power plant which simply flushes its nuclear waste down the toilet saves more than one which goes through costly safety measures to discard of the waste in an environmentally and health conscious way. Corporate savings is not the only nor best measure of regulation adjustments.
I doubt that there is anything wrong with periodic reviews and simplifications of regulations. But that requires intelligence and patience to do properly.
I’m not expecting that.
This is probably the linky sleestak meant to offer.
My agency just implemented a new set of regulations - revised mental impairment Listings for Social Security disability. The promulgating language claims they are revenue neutral. Easy to say. Of course, to anyone actually applying them, it is extremely clear that they will result in considerably increased expenditures.
Yup, here’s Dr. Ron Paul promoting a similar piece of legislation:
Our economic recovery remains frustratingly sluggish, unemployment is still unacceptably high, and all of us should be concerned that leading U.S. corporations have remained on the economic sidelines over much of the past year instead of making new investments or hiring additional workers.
One re
ason often cited for this unwillingness to invest is executives’ belief that Washington regulators are stifling fresh investment and discouraging innovation through new rules and requirements.
If Washington expects to partner with the private sector to lead the effort toward economic recovery, we must address the regulatory uncertainty felt by many of our small and large businesses.
…
our current regulatory framework actually favors those federal agencies that consistently churn out new red tape. In this town, expanded regulatory authority typically is rewarded with additional resources and a higher bureaucratic profile, and there is no process or incentive for an agency to eliminate or clean up old regulations.
As a former CEO, I think the best option is to adopt a regulatory “pay as you go” system. I am drafting legislation that would require federal agencies to identify and eliminate one existing regulation for each new regulation they want to add.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, theestimated annual cost of federal regulations in 2008 exceeded $1.75 trillion. The Office of Management and Budget says that the federal government has issued more than 132,000 final rules since 1981, andover 1,200 of those rules have an estimated economic impact of greater than $100 million each.
My legislation represents a common-sense effort for a more appropriate regulatory balance. It would require federal agencies to produce a baseline catalogue of their existing regulations and a credible, quantifiable estimate of the economic impact for each one.
OMB should have primary responsibility for these estimates, and the Congressional Budget Office or the Government Accountability Office should be given responsibility for checking the math and verifying the underlying assumptions.
Regulatory pay-go would discourage agencies from continually adding new rules because they would be required to eliminate one outdated or duplicative regulation of the same approximate economic impact for each new rule they want to enact. This will not only provide balance but also will help simplify or eliminate outdated rules and procedures.
Wait, my mistake. It wasn’t Ron Paul who said that. It was a Democratic Senator, Mark Warner.
And when there are splendid reasons to get rid of regulations, how do you propose to make the agencies acknowledge those splendid reasons and do the right thing by eliminating those bad regulations? This is one thing that those in the liberal bubble just don’t seem to get. Most people hate regulations and want there to be fewer of them. If Democrats want to win more elections in places west of the Appalachians and East of the Sierra Nevadas, they should have followed Senator Warner’s lead and shown interest in removing regulations, rather than piling on thousands of new ones.
Maybe there could be an Imperial Censor, as in Ancient China, charged with wandering around rooting out evil, etc… However it would still be examining each regulation in isolation and weighing up whether it is useful or harmful, and not just taking it out to make a matching pair.
*In essence, the senator would require federal regulatory agencies with missions that are critical to the health, safety and financial security of average Americans to eliminate one existing regulation for every proposed regulation. So if the Agriculture Department tries to ensure that eggs are free of salmonella, it might have to give up a regulation on meat factory inspections. Perhaps the Environmental Protection Agency would be forced to give up a regulation protecting wetlands from overdevelopment to get a regulation reducing particle pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
Mr. Warner professes not to question the need for common-sense rules, but given the difficulty in promulgating meaningful regulations in the face of powerful industry opposition, the Warner proposal would further stack the deck in favor of corporate interests.*
And I see no reason suggested the snivelling Dr. Paul would not be as in favour as I speculated.
Hey, come on. I am not at all a Trump fan but this is a really good idea. Tidying up. God knows they need it, and I speak as a person who once had to read the Federal Register with my morning coffee.
Some of you have no idea of all the regulations, including some that conflict with other regulations (both from another agency and within one agency, see EPA).
I would be willing to bet that any agency that has some pressing concern they need a regulation for can go through their books and find hundreds that have no relevance, or maybe they did once but they don’t any longer.
So if a new danger associated with an engineered product is discovered, in order to regulate a safety measure two other safety regulations should be removed?
i.e. the truss was able to withstand the shear load, but unfortunately due to removing the regulations on material quality …
If a food product regulation is identified as beneficial for public health do we really want two other food product regulations removed?
i.e. the ham didn’t give people botulism, but due to having to remove regulations on expiry dates …
Have you ever read your way through any of these regulations? Of course they can find some that are less important. They just have to evaluate whether the new “threat” is worth having to find two regulations to get rid of. Obviously we’ve gotten along without a regulation for the new thing so far. If they’re just updating a regulation because of some new discovery or whatever, then that’s one they can eliminate, since they’re updating it, so now they only need to find one more.
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.
Well, he’s already produced one or two he could reasonably get rid of straight away.
