Author Topic: One in, two out, and cost ceiling of ZERO (Read 1749 times)

Brad Johnson · « **on:** January 30, 2017, 02:23:45 PM »

Summary... for every new regulation two have to be eliminated, and the cost of the new regulation cannot exceed $0 (the cost has to be offset by the elimination of the other two regs).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/30/trump-signs-executive-order-to-drastically-cut-federal-regs.html

We'll see how long it takes for bureaucrats' heads to explode and liberals to melt into crying puddles of goo now that their precious regulatory stranglehold faces a clear and very direct threat.

Brad

MechAg94 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2017, 02:36:20 PM »

It is a good start.

MillCreek · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2017, 02:57:34 PM »

This will be so interesting to watch, especially the regulations being eliminated.

Ben · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2017, 03:08:47 PM »

This, to me, is one of his best EOs. He actually left it up to each agency on what regulations they want to eliminate to compensate for the new one. In the short term, that can lead to a couple of piddly regs going away for an invasive one, but as time goes on, that will be harder for them to do. It will also keep loads of "bee sting" regs from being created.

I understand the WH still gets final consult, so that should help reduce the "two little regs for one big honkin' reg" thing.

DittoHead · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2017, 03:50:02 PM »

I think it's probably a good move overall but it will definitely be interesting to watch how it plays out. It unfortunately seems to reward agencies who haven't done anything to cleanup/minimize regulations as they will likely have a "buffer" of sorts with accumulated old regs to axe while an agency that actually was doing a good job (don't ask me to name one

) wouldn't have that when they do need a regulation. I guess a lot comes down to how a single regulation is defined, and cost is a whole other can of worms, but it's also incentivizing the single broad regulation vs multiple targeted ones.

If the people implementing this EO actually took the intent of it to heart and agreed with the purpose then it could be great. But then I guess we wouldn't need an EO. Without that, it will probably just slow things down (not necessarily a bad thing).

KD5NRH · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2017, 03:50:31 PM »

Quote from: Ben on January 30, 2017, 03:08:47 PM

This, to me, is one of his best EOs. He actually left it up to each agency on what regulations they want to eliminate to compensate for the new one. In the short term, that can lead to a couple of piddly regs going away for an invasive one, but as time goes on, that will be harder for them to do. It will also keep loads of "bee sting" regs from being created.

The more invasive it is, the more expensive it tends to be. He's also smart enough to call BS on drastically deflated cost estimates.

Quote

I guess a lot comes down to how a single regulation is defined,

Call it one major heading in their books, but also void any others broken by removal of a cross referenced title.

DustinD · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2017, 05:04:24 PM »

I like that it legitimizes and popularized this sort of thinking. I am looking forward to seeing how the ATF handles this. Here is hoping that if they add any gun regs they will remove gun regs and not alcohol or tobacco regs.

brimic · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2017, 05:16:56 PM »

While I appreciate his EOs so far, they need to be followed up on and run them through congress to make them into actual laws.

KD5NRH · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2017, 05:35:55 PM »

Quote from: DustinD on January 30, 2017, 05:04:24 PM

I like that it legitimizes and popularized this sort of thinking. I am looking forward to seeing how the ATF handles this. Here is hoping that if they add any gun regs they will remove gun regs and not alcohol or tobacco regs.

I'll trade GCA '34 and '68 for a law requiring WalMart to stock more ammo.