Granted, the party would lose the votes of "peter" (those paying the price in the marketplace), but it would gain the votes of "paul" (those getting the now massively inflated government handout).
No one getting a massively inflated handout as implementation would be halted via injuction and administative remedy of the Courts on challenge.
Without an act of Congress, whatever the bureaucracy publishes becomes defacto law.
Only if it passes through statutorily prescribed process for the proposal, board review, public review process, and publication of regulations, and then survive the 90 day Congressional review period after publication. No act of Congress is necescary during the review process, a mere challenge is sufficient to bring things to a screeching halt. Even after all that, the regulation is still challengable in the Courts under tort law, or plea for administrative relief where error, malfeasance, or misfeasance can be shown to the standard of preponderance of the evidence. An injuction to halt implementation until after the contoversy is resolved in the court take less than that.
It is clear you have a very limited understanding of the processes involved in proposing, implementing, and challenge of regulations. Things do not happen by mere fiat of individual bureaucrats in government, it takes concurrent complicity of the President, Congress, department heads, regulatory review boards, and the Courts to make a bad regulation or material error stick.