Jefferson Davis "J.D." Hogg, better known as "Boss" Hogg, is a fictional character featured in the American television series The Dukes of Hazzard. He was the greedy, unethical commissioner of Hazzard County. Wikipedia
Posted on 02/28/2017 9:47:34 AM PST by GonzoII
President Donald Trump's executive order to eliminate two regulations for every new rule could result in zero net regulatory costs this fiscal year, a stunning shift in regulatory policy from the previous Obama administration.
The American Action Forum released a report Tuesday showing how Executive Order 13771 could significantly roll back regulatory burdens, using 2006 as a model.
The "Getting to $0" report written by Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, finds that through the executive orders on regulation and the Congressional Review Act, the administration could reduce net regulatory costs to zero by Oct. 1.
By contrast, the last year of the Obama presidency yielded $164 billion in costs from final regulations alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
At zero, there won’t be enough kickbacks and pay offs and fat wallets to go around.
I hope this pans out but I suspect that the entrenched bureaucrats will introduce a new regulation like “all cars shall transition to anti-gravity technology within five years or gigantic penalties will be imposed on drivers” and repeal ones like “citizens shall be given a fair hearing prior to imposition of fines”
Starving the beast one EO at a time.
I don’t know if zero is the right target. In view of the massive number of regulations that Obama (and Bush) implemented over the past 16 years, it needs to be less than zero.
Or include the deleted old regulations into the new regulation.
If the Republicans are serious about controlling regulations, now that they control both legislative and executive branches they ought to pass a law saying that any regulation that costs more than x dollars must be approved by Congress and the President.
In other words, Congress should take back their law making powers from the bureaucrats.
To my way of thinking, "yield" implies giving. Almost like Obama's wise policies GAVE the country $164B.
No.
Obama's policies DRAINED $164B from the national economy.
“President Donald Trump’s executive order to eliminate two regulations for every new rule”
I understand the thinking behind the new rule and applaud the thought process behind it, is the new regulation necessary and will it promote good governance.
I’m just not really sure how I feel about the arbitrary nature of this.
Suppose the FDA discovers that a food additive in wide use or a highly prescribed drug you take has a here-to-fore unknown high potential health risk and needs to be regulated in some new manner or have very specific new instructions for how and where it is safe to use.
Should they delay putting the new regulation in place and prolonging exposure to a substance that is now known to be a significant health risk until, they can come up with two other unrelated regulations to eliminate first?
The taxes are sort of a quick hit, but I'd think that less regs would provide longer term benefits.
>
If the Republicans are serious about controlling regulations, now that they control both legislative and executive branches they ought to pass a law saying that any regulation that costs more than x dollars must be approved by Congress and the President.
In other words, Congress should take back their law making powers from the bureaucrats.
>
Sorry, and not completely directed as your post, but I always groan when those here propose returning to Constitutional principles by wishing to pass yet another law.
Congress has no authority to create said extra-Constitutional agencies/etc. Even less do these said spin-offs have any Constitutional muster to generate anything with the EFFECT of law (which ONLY Congress can do).
I concur w/ other posters: It shouldn’t be a zero sum game, it should be a NEGATIVE return!
If Congress can’t vote/pass each and every reg/rule they are null/void.
>
the last year of the Obama presidency yielded $164 billion in costs
To my way of thinking, “yield” implies giving. Almost like Obama’s wise policies GAVE the country $164B.
>
It’s because you’re not steeped in ‘govt speak’.
Govt ‘investments’ doesn’t cost anything but generate MORE $$ and tax breaks have to be ‘paid for’...
If no new regulations are promulgated then the regulation does not change and it is way above permitting American business to operate efficiently and competitively in the world.
Reducing regulation without eliminating the regulating Agencies will have no net effect by the end of the next Administration.
>
“President Donald Trump’s executive order to eliminate two regulations for every new rule”
I understand the thinking behind the new rule and applaud the thought process behind it, is the new regulation necessary and will it promote good governance.
I’m just not really sure how I feel about the arbitrary nature of this.
Suppose the FDA discovers that a food additive in wide use or a highly prescribed drug you take has a here-to-fore unknown high potential health risk and needs to be regulated in some new manner or have very specific new instructions for how and where it is safe to use.
Should they delay putting the new regulation in place and prolonging exposure to a substance that is now known to be a significant health risk until, they can come up with two other unrelated regulations to eliminate first?
>
Right. As if the FDA were Constitutional to begin and it\govt care about We the People and our Rights.
Ask ‘em about any number of known drugs in the world (say used in Europe for the past 40yrs) and why the same isn’t available in the U.S. Or, how ‘medical break-through’ XYZ was allowed, but 2 yrs. later removed from the market as causing A, B, C.
The bureaucracy exists for bureaucracy sake...no other.
Points taken.
I think there needs to be sound logic and due diligence applied to lifting regulations, and there are a LOT of regulations that need to be lifted.
Not a big fan of arbitrary rules or actions.
Beware the law of unintended consequences.
That has to be “net regulatory cost INCREASE”. That would be remarkable in itself, but a standstill isn’t the same as a reduction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.