Posted on 05/24/2007 6:19:48 PM PDT by Politicalmom
Do you have any specific links on this? Thanks.
In the Senate, Thompson also led the charge to rein in the unelected bureaucracy and stop them from making laws (which are Constitutionally legislative powers).
As Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Thompson sponsored the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. S.59 was a bill to provide Government-wide accounting of regulatory costs and benefits.
Thompson’s remarks upon introducing the bill:
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999.’’ I am pleased that Senator BREAUX and Majority Leader LOTT have joined me in this effort. Our goals are to promote the public’s right to know about the benefits and costs of regulatory programs; to increase the accountability of government to the people it serves; and ultimately, to improve the quality of our regulatory programs. This legislation will help us assess what benefits our regulatory programs are delivering, at what cost, and help us understand what we need to do to improve them.
By any measure, the burdens of Federal regulation are enormous. By some estimates, Federal regulation costs about $700 billion per year, or $7,000 for the average American household. I hear concerns about unnecessary regulatory burdens and red tape from people all across the country and from all walks of life—small business owners, governors and local officials, farmers, corporate leaders, government reformers, school board members and parents.
There is strong public support for sensible regulations that can help ensure cleaner water, quality products, safer workplaces, reliable economic markets, and the like. But there is substantial evidence that the current regulatory system is missing important opportunities to deliver greater benefits at less cost. The depth of this problem is not appreciated fully because the costs of regulation are not as apparent as other costs of government, such as taxes, and the benefits of regulation often are diffuse. The bottom line is that the American people deserve better results from the vast resources and time spent on regulation. We’ve got to be smarter.
We often spend a lot of time debating on-budget programs, but we are just breaking ground on creating a system to scrutinize Federal regulation. This legislation does not change any regulatory standards; it simply will provide better information to help us answer some important questions: How much do regulatory programs cost each year? Are we spending the right amount, particularly compared to on-budget spending and private initiatives? Are we setting sensible priorities among different regulatory programs? As the Office of Management and Budget stated in its first ``Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations’’:
[R]egulations (like other instruments of government policy) have enormous potential for both good and harm....... The only way we know how to distinguish between the regulations that do good and those that cause harm is through careful assessment and evaluation of their benefits and costs. Such analysis can also often be used to redesign harmful regulations so they produce more good than harm and redesign good regulations so they produce even more net benefits.
There is broad support for making our government more open, efficient, and accountable. This legislation continues the efforts of my precedessors. Regulatory accounting was a part of a regulatory reform bill that unanimously passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee in 1995 when BILL ROTH was our chairman. In 1996, when TED STEVENS became our chairman, he passed a one-time regulatory accounting amendment on the Omnibus Appropriations Act. I supported Senator STEVENS’ effort when it passed again in 1997, and I sponsored a similar measure last year, with the support of Senators LOTT, BREAUX, ROBB and SHELBY. There also is a broad bipartisan coalition in the House that supports regulatory accounting.
This legislation will continue the requirement that OMB report to Congress on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, which began with the Stevens amendment. This legislation also adds to previous initiatives in several respects. First, it will finally make regulatory accounting a permanent statutory requirement. Regulatory accounting will become a regular exercise to help ensure that regulatory programs are cost-effective, sensible, and fair. Second, this legislation will require OMB to provide a more complete picture of the regulatory system, including the incremental costs and benefits of particular programs and regulations, as well as an analysis of regulatory impacts on small business, governments, the private sector, wages and economic growth. OMB also will look back at the annual regulatory costs and benefits for the preceding 4 fiscal years, building on information generated under the Stevens amendment. Finally, this legislation will help ensure that OMB provides better information as time goes on. Requirements for OMB guidelines and independent peer review should improve future regulatory accounting reports.
Government has an obligation to think carefully and be accountable for requirements that impose costs on people and limit their freedom. We should pull together to contribute to the success of responsible government programs the public values, while enhancing the economic security and well-being of our families and communities.
Oops, I meant to ping the anti-liberal to post #22.
This is an excellent one.
That is absolutely wonderful!
Thank you, ellery!
I very much appreciate your post.
Funny you should ask that. I was just reading one of his position papers on his old Senate website today.
Lastly, the United States should work through international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, to help resolve regional disputes, to voice our concerns about the actions of other nations, and to promote our values and ideas. However, Senator Thompson does not believe that the United States should be expected to shoulder the financial burden of these international institutions. Each country that has a voice in the operation of the institution should share the burden of operating the institution. Nor does he believe that the United States should cede any of our sovereign rights as a nation to multilateral institutions. At no time should international institutions be given the authority to tax American citizens, control U.S. soldiers outside our chain of command, prosecute Americans soldiers and citizens, or make laws governing the American people.
Fred is about eight inches taller than Grant, so I hope they use tall actors opposite him. But I guess people will just see the beard. Grant, by the way, is supposed to have had a very musical voice, odd for someone who couldn’t carry a tune.
OH MY GOSH!! HE’S A GLOBALIST!!!
*Runs from room tearing my hair, off to get my sackcloth and ashes.....*
EXCELLENT find, by the way. :)
Thanks for the kind words! Everytime I delve into Thompson’s record on THOMAS, I come away more impressed. I’m very happy to share!
Well, keep “sharing!”
You are doing a wonderful thing!
BTW, one of my very favorite characters is named Ellery. ;o)
Damn, I already backed him but if he opposed the use of federal blackmail wrt seat belt laws and (lets hope) the DUI threshold he just became way more salable among the “leave me alone, you dorky bureaucrats” crowd.
Any effective President has to be somewhat of a “globalist”. The key is not letting the UN et al usurp our sovereignty and Fred is solid on that.
-Eric
Considering that he wants to get the federal government out of the business of things that belong to state and local governments (if even that), I sincerely doubt he has any plans to submit to an international government.
I think I read somewhere that he'll be seated when he's on screen (it's not a very large part, one or two scenes, I believe).
Shoukd Fred be elected president, he would be the tallest man since Lincoln to hold the office. Grant, as a young man, was small enough to be a jockey, and he was a superb horseman.
It can’t be! The Fred-haters told me that they got info straight from God Himself that Fred is a neo-con Globalist who will do everything in lockstep with the Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations!
And that he Builds a mean Burger. Or something like that.
Has anyone seen my tinfoil hat.
Globalist as a word meaning pro-trade and willing to work with other nations economically and defensively, fine.
Globalist as in UN-sellout - not fine.
Now, now.
Let us be a just little bit realistic.
Nobody gets EVERYTHING they want from a candidate.
In your short list of “wants”, there are some items that NO candidate could provide.
There are some things that only the courts can deal with.Others suited for the Executive. Some that are for the common culture to deal with.
If a candidate pretty much meets your general ideology and philosophy, and there is an absence of things you cannot live with, even though there are things that annoy, well,...be as happy as you can be.
Remember. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. For any office. Anywhere. Ever!
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.