Trump - Eliminate 2 regulations for every new regulation

This could be yuge! Trump signed EO saying that all the agencies must eliminate two existing regulations anytime they implement a new regulation! As someone who works in an industry that has felt the boot of the unelected bureaucratic state regulating unchecked, this is big news.

The Deep State bureaucrats are a huge problem. Often passing regulations at the behest of lobbiest with little to no concern as to their unintended consequences. In addition, rarely does anyone hold the bureaucracies accountable to ensure that existing regulations make sense and evaluated periodically.

Trump is going to Make America Great Again by making it a great place to do business. Here come the jobs. It is going to be a good 8 years.

Trump Executive Order to Eliminate Regulations

We finally have someone in the White House with a set balls and common sense and who is putting the American people first!

a reply to: Edumakated

It's like I'm living in a dream.

*checks pulse*

Wait a minute... if this is a dream, and I'm lucid, maybe I can fly!

*jumps out window*

(maybe I'll start from the ground next time)

a reply to: Edumakated

Hell yes.

Should have made it three.
Or ten, there's no shortage.

We need to get too a place where the average citizen knows all of the laws they need to follow.
As we sit, no officer our lawyer knows them all.
There's not even an official count of how many laws there are. It's insane.

This is a good start.

a reply to: Edumakated

eliminate two existing regulations anytime they implement a new regulation

You could say this is two steps forward, one step back

a reply to: Edumakated

I think its odd that he chose an arbitrary amount.

But more to the point, what he should be doing is working towards eliminating these unconstitutional agencies and bureaucracies and sending the responsibilities and power to the states, where it legally belongs.

Better than nothing I guess.

Good. Now we see manufacturing returning to the USA. Made in USA!

have any of you "geniuses" above even consider that there might be.....A REASON!!!!.....for those regulations?.....are any of you able to cite what regulation(s) he will get rid of?...or the details?.....and yet you say this is GREAT....the ignorance of this is stupifiying

originally posted by: jimmyx
have any of you "geniuses" above even consider that there might be.....A REASON!!!!.....for those regulations?.....are any of you able to cite what regulation(s) he will get rid of?...or the details?.....and yet you say this is GREAT....the ignorance of this is stupifiying

The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. The city even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.

If you attempt to give a tour of our nation's capital without a license, you could be put in prison for 90 days.

Federal agents recently raided an Amish farm at 5 A.M. in the morning because they were selling "unauthorized" raw milk.

A U.S. District Court judge slapped a $500 fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.

hotels, restaurants, airlines, and the like became obliged to modify “policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate miniature horses as service animals. According to the Department of Justice, which administers the rule, miniature horses are a “viable alternative” to dogs for individuals with allergies or for observant Muslims and others whose religious beliefs preclude canine accompaniment.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed stricter nutrition standards that would prohibit school lunch ladies from serving more than one cup per week of potatoes per student.

Under the so-called Boiler MACT, factories, restaurants, schools, churches, and even farms would be required to conduct emissions testing and comply with standards of control that vary by boiler size, feedstock, and available technologies. The stringency and cost of the new regulations provoked an outpouring of protest, including 21 governors and more than 100 Members of Congress. On May 18, the EPA published a notice of postponement in the Federal Register, but the regulations remain on the books.

New rules require government contractors to give first preference in hiring to the workers of the company that lost the contract.

I could do this all day. There are so many stupid regulations at the state and federal level.

originally posted by: jimmyx
have any of you "geniuses" above even consider that there might be.....A REASON!!!!.....for those regulations?.....are any of you able to cite what regulation(s) he will get rid of?...or the details?.....and yet you say this is GREAT....the ignorance of this is stupifiying

Clearly you've never had to deal with these faceless bureaucrats attempting to justify their existence. On a daily basis, I have to deal with regulations from agencies like the CFPB and HUD, not to mention legislation regarding RESPA, Dodd Frank, etc. I haven't even gotten into all the BS at the state level.

All this EO is doing is saying that if you are going to implement a new regulation you need to find two others that can be eliminated. What often happens is some obscure regulation gets implemented and no one ever stops to see if the regulations is even effective or relevant.

In many cases, these regulations often conflict with other agencies edicts. The regulations are usually created through some lobbying effort of a special interest group.

No one has argued that all regulations are bad. However, when we have a federal register that is 34,000 pages something is wrong.

originally posted by: jimmyx
have any of you "geniuses" above even consider that there might be.....A REASON!!!!.....for those regulations?.....are any of you able to cite what regulation(s) he will get rid of?...or the details?.....and yet you say this is GREAT....the ignorance of this is stupifiying

The same reason for all regulations. Power and Control. Government Agencies become fiefdoms, fiefdoms strive to become empires. If you, as head of an agency, want to inflate your own power, then you need more regulations to enforce, as this translates into more work, more prestige and importance, more staff needed, and justification for an ever-increasing budget.

Very little, very very little, should be regulated at the Federal level. Even that little regulation should actually flow directly from Congress, not from a power delegated to an agency. The less the Feds control, the more autonomy the individual states claw back. Let them regulate all the things, as long as that regulation does not stand contrary to the Constitution.

There is nothing common sense about this. Removing 2 regulations only because a new one is added... to think after 8 years, this is what republicans come back with... it's the opposite of jedi training... it's like they spent 8 years vigorously jamming a wire hanger up their nose-- and now they're ready to take the stage... more moronic and devoid of rational thought than ever before.

originally posted by: jimmyx
have any of you "geniuses" above even consider that there might be.....A REASON!!!!.....for those regulations?.....are any of you able to cite what regulation(s) he will get rid of?...or the details?.....and yet you say this is GREAT....the ignorance of this is stupifiying

No...
What is "stupifying(sp)" is a population that is okay with so many rules and regulations the average American commits 3 felonies a day without even knowing. Source

What is "stupifying(sp)" is a population that is okay with a 65 thousand page tax code.

What is "stupifying(sp)" is the people who claim to be anti-fascist are the most authoritarian of us all!

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
There is nothing common sense about this. Removing 2 regulations only because a new one is added... to think after 8 years, this is what republicans come back with... it's the opposite of jedi training... it's like they spent 8 years vigorously jamming a wire hanger up their nose-- and now they're ready to take the stage... more moronic and devoid of rational thought than ever before.

I agree. This is arbitrary and reckless.

a reply to: FauxMulder

and yet, you do not cite THE REASON GIVEN, or "the why" or "the harm" created, that initiated those above regs.

so, it would seem prudent to analyze the effectiveness of those regulations, whether they are good or bad, and, good or bad for whom....this weekend showed exactly what would happen when this administration "acted" on regulations, without consulting with people that have the knowledge of the harm that could be done.

a reply to: Edumakated

This is a dumb and lazy way to tackle government over-regulation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

This is a dumb and lazy way to tackle government over-regulation.

I think it is efficient as it puts the burden back on the agencies to evaluate themselves. If you are an agencies and you need to eliminate a regulation, you will seek to eliminate the ones you know are worthless to pass the one you feel is important.

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this approach.

We have a Fed Register that is 34,000 pages. WTF?

a reply to: Edumakated

So you think that a government organization known for acting inefficiently will suddenly act efficiently when they self-audit for unnecessary regulations? So. I have this bridge I can sell you. Are you interested? It's VERY bigly and great.

a reply to: Edumakated

On the surface this may seem like a good idea, but it doesn't really make much sense.

If we do not trust the bureaucrats putting these regulations in place, why are we going to trust them to eliminate regulations as new ones are implemented?

In Trump's EO, does it provide guidelines for deciding which regulations need to be dumped, such as a measurement of effectiveness, overall impact, etc? Or perhaps it's up to the bureaucrats to do whatever they want?

I think this EO should have been thought-out a bit more, even though I can agree with less regulations.

This really doesn't make any sense at all. Are all regulations equal in impact and purpose? Do all federal agencies have unnecessary, ineffective/counterproductive or overly burdensome regulations and in the same proportions?

Rather than this ham-fisted approach that sounds like a stupid fad diet (eat only orange foods bro! you'll lose weight!) why not examine the regulations and remove/revise the ones that aren't accomplishing what they should be accomplishing?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

In Trump's EO, does it provide guidelines for deciding which regulations need to be dumped, such as a measurement of effectiveness, overall impact, etc? Or perhaps it's up to the bureaucrats to do whatever they want?

I think this EO should have been thought-out a bit more, even though I can agree with less regulations.

As with other things, it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to establish which agencies can be trusted to be given a direction and left to get on with things, or which agencies will need you to divert your time and attention into fixing them, this degree of freedom could become an interesting test.

I think Trump is going to spend the next few months weeding out the problems - and a practical test like this is far more useful and produces more actionable information than commissioning an independent investigator to spend the next 24 months and millions of dollars writing a 30,000 page report.