Posted on 02/01/2017 3:28:36 AM PST by IBD editorial writer
As soon as President Trump signed his executive order calling for two regulations to be eliminated for every new one enacted, the usual suspects started to complain.
Union of Concerned Scientists President Ken Kimmell called it "absurd, imposing a Sophie's Choice on federal agencies."
William Gale of the left-of-center Brookings Institution complained that "there's no logic to this."
Public Citizen head Robert Weissman called Trump's order "unworkable," "harmful," "unprecedented and untested," and "horrifying."
"Americans will once again have to pay the price for the consequences of corporate recklessness, greed and lawbreaking," Weissman added for good measure.
Trump's executive order, signed on Monday, doesn't deregulate anything. It simply is an attempt to cap the current costs of regulations this year by requiring agencies to offset the costs of any new rule by eliminating regulations that impose equal costs.
"The heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero," the order said.
It's a tiny first step toward cutting the enormous cost of federal regulations — which by some estimates adds up to almost $1.9 trillion a year.
What critics of deregulation fail to mention, however, is that it is greedy corporations that are likely to be one of Trump's biggest opponents when it comes to dismantling, or even taming, the federal government's massively complex and enormously expensive regulatory state.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
>>Union of Concerned Scientists President Ken Kimmell called it “absurd, imposing a Sophie’s Choice on federal agencies.”<<
The Onion?
John Semmens?
He didn’t really SAY that, did he?
yep
Of course they fail to mention it. The three advocacy groups mentioned at the top of the article include the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Brookings Institution, and Public Citizen. Without even doing any research I can almost guarantee you that all of these non-profit groups get huge contributions from the same corporations that are opposed to Trump's changes in Federal regulations.
Not only that, but the contributions these corporations make to various "public interest" groups are done for the sole purpose of lobbying in a way that hides the true intentions of the donor.
I come across this nonsense all of the time in the trucking industry. Whenever Congress or the USDOT considers changes in legislation or regulations that offers some improvement in operating efficiency for the trucking industry, there is a flood of public comments from various "highway safety groups" opposing the changes -- and these groups are heavily funded by the railroad industry.
You want to save something. Fund it privately.
To the idiot who said there is no logic in relaxing regulations: if you think that, you aren’t trying very hard.
Union of Communist Scientists, you mean.
Thanks for a great post.
My only concern is that Trump's directive may be rather easily end-runned by simply combining language from two old regulations into one new one.
A little word-smithing and voila, Leviathan continues it's iron grip on Americans.
Oh no! Not the Greedy Corporations! Anything but that!
I presume the "Not Greedy Corporations" will be fully on board?
you are confusing legislation with regulation
there are regulations rising from the endangered species act that must be eliminated in order to obtain a new regulation.
The president can act on regulation but congress must act on existing law
Thanks. I wouldn’t worry about that end-running. Remember that this directive he has signed doesn’t have the force of law. It’s a directive that he is giving to the executive branch. Anyone in his own bureaucracy who tries an “end-run” like the one you describe can be — and will be — overridden.
yes ESA needs to be at a minimums scaled back.... it now protects the northern long eared bat.... which is dieing out of natural causes... but still has esa protection which creates mountains of cost and paperwork... species are protected EVEN IF THAT PROTECTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES....
Every limitation of our freedom to act within the bounds of our collective conscience, has an advocate and a constituency that wants to perpetuate that limitation. The constituency may at times be limited to ONLY that advocate, which is one of the most egregious acts of selfishness that may be imagined, and the reasoning may not be based in any kind of critical thinking or logical discourse.
People who claim to call themselves “scientists” are often anything but. Bigots, tyrants, fools, but not scientists.
I most strongly support the spirit of the order. The practical implementation leaves me with many questions. Text of order can be found here:
Cost to whom? Say I create a regulation that requires inspection of every home in America for dangerous firearms under the BATFE. I estimate the cost of new inspectors, training, publication of regs is $2B. But I will impose a $100 fee for the inspection on the inspected household, generating (100 x 124M households)$12B, so it not only costs nothing, but generates revenue! I hope Trump specifies “net cost to each American” or something to that effect.
Whatever the status quo is there is a powerful lobby behind it. Every regulation favors one group over another group. This is true also in corporations. Trump understands this and how to get around it. He will enlist the help he needs.
Unfortunately, the status quo benefits from inertia. It’s hard to get change initialized and keep it moving. When I was the change agent for a medium sized company I reported to the president and he’d personally get involved wherever I pointed. He pushed the change we needed right down at the floor level, going around his traitorous staff who didn’t want the change but publically supported it. He/we/the company won. The changes greatly improved the company. It can be done and Trump strikes me as a hands on guy who can make it happen.
Whenever I hear "greedy corporations" it's an instant tune-out. As if corporations haven't been greedy from time immemorial, or that the purpose of a corporation is to maximize the good to everything and everybody but itself.
Criminals do crime regardless of law.
Regulation just gets private criminals off the field to make room for organized political criminals.
Corporations love regulations. That way, whatever happens is the regulatory agency’s fault, and the corporation can claim that it was in compliance with everything it was supposed to do.
You either believe in Evolution or you don't.
Where's a Pterodactyl when you need one?
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.