Posted on 12/31/2017 11:57:54 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Just in time for Christmas, the Trump administration released the Fall 2018 edition of the twice-yearly Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which, unlike prior editions, showcases progress on the president's promises to cut red tape.
The occasion featured a White House announcement by the President, as well as a Wall Street Journal preview by Neomi Rao, who serves as Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. That's the office of the regulatory czar.
In Trump’s first 2017 Agenda installment, which appeared back in July, 469 regulatory proposals that had appeared in former President Barack Obama’s Fall 2016 Agenda were withdrawn. Another 391 were reclassified for further review, for a total of 860 put on hold.
The December regulatory Agenda has brought the tally up to 1,579 regulatory actions withdrawn or delayed, broken down as follows:
635 regulations were withdrawn.
244 regulations were made inactive.
700 regulations were delayed.
The Unified Agenda (the “Reguatory Plan” component is included in the Fall edition of the Unified Agenda each year) is hardly riveting reading for most people. It’s been around since the early 80s but most have probably not heard of it. Basically, it highlights regulatory priorities of the federal bureaucracy.
The roundup has suffered in recent years from delays in its traditional April and October release schedule, and this year is no different. Trump’s Reg Plan is actually the latest ever. The tradeoff this time is that using the report as a vehicle to emphasize a red-tape cutting agenda is completely unique.
The Trump administration's making a spectacle of the Agenda makes sense; This is, after all, the year of "one-in, two-out" for federal agency rules, as stipulated in Trump’s Executive Order 13771 . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I’ve always maintained that cutting the senseless and choking regulations would do more for the economy that a tax cut.
Combine the two and you have a prescription for solid economic growth.
If they can reign in the hostile legal environment we would then have a trifecta - 5% GDP growth as far as the eye can see. Da Louyas have ruined this country for sure.
President Trump keeping his campaign promises! What a concept!
Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Winning is addictive, more winning please!
The hostile legal environment is not just regulatory. It is long past time for the chairmen of the senate and house judiciary committees to sit down and figure out a major restructuring of the federal courts.
1) Adjusting the circuit courts for demographic changes, possibly including a split of the 9th Circuit. Likewise, eliminating entire courts (replacing them with different courts with different judges.) Retire a bunch of the worst of the judges this way—much easier than impeaching them.
2) Putting to rest a large number of “perpetual cases”, the same issues arising and traveling through the federal courts, clogging them. For example, the infamous “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, that made it to the SCOTUS *twice*. The judiciary committees could just state that a long list of case types are no longer allowed in federal court.
3) Also creating federal guidelines for “stare decisis” (court precedent), specifically excluding a lot of flawed precedents from federal courts.
4) Establish criteria for expert testimony. An expert is not an expert because they say they are, or have minimal credentials. No expert testimony for non-objective subjects.
Fewer regulations, fewer regulators. I’m in favor of anything that makes bureaucrats cry. And disappear.
Two words: loser pays.
I agree with you but only for now. If we ever roll back the regulatory state then taxes will be the choke point and then it is energy. But there isnt any reason not to do all three. With all three lined up the US would thrash the world and would not need trade protection. Just look at China worrying about capital flight to the US.
Mike Needham of Heritage made a good point on Fox Sunday.
Trump wants an infrastructure program. Infrastructure programs will fail and be embarassing because EPA and NLRB and all kinds of regulations cause infrastructure programs to fail.
Blue collar working people, including union Democrats want infrastructure projects and are insulted by over-regulation... as if they are too dumb to know what is in their own self-interest.
If Trump ties infrastructure and de-regulation together, Trump will further split the blue collar Democrats away from the environmentalist Democrats.
I am generally opposed to infrastructure projects. But if this one can be used to revoke the stupid EPA regulations and NLRB and XYZ regs, then let’s go for it.
Allegedly, Trump’s priority is infrastructure, Ryan’s is entitlements. McConnell’s is immigrations because he thinks Republicans and Democrats can come to an agreement on immigration. Any immigration bill that comes out of such bi-partisanship can only mean one thing... welfare to immigration lawyers with a full employment act for them.
We need a strategy, including a US Senate Candidate strategy that makes sure our effort goes to Trump and Ryan, and not to McConnell.
I agree.
Wickard v Filburn.
L
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.