Trump Signs EO On Regulation: "For Every New Regulation, Two Regulations Must Be Revoked"

[openfire]

President Trump has signed an executive action to revoke two regulations for every one enacted, or as officials told AP, that they are naming the new directive a “one in, two out” plan. Federal agencies will need to revoke two regulations for every new regulation they request, and the White House will review the proposal, according to administration officials.

The order sets a budget of $0 for new regulations in 2017 and the administration will set a regulation budget each year, the official said on customary condition of anonymity. Military and national security regulations are exempt.

"This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen. There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be normalized control," Trump said as he signed the order in the Oval Office, surrounded by a group of small business owners.

Trump's latest executive action will prepare a process for the White House to set an annual cap on the cost of new regulations, a senior official told reporters ahead of the signing. For the rest of fiscal 2017, that cap on new regulations would be $0, the official said on customary condition of anonymity.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-30/trump-signs-executive-orders-regulation-every-new-regultion-two-regulations-must-be-

[LibertyEagle]

It would have been better to make it 1:100.

[CaptUSA]

"This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen. There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be normalized control," Trump said

Well, if that doesn't inspire confidence in our dear leader... :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Well, if that doesn't inspire confidence in our dear leader... :rolleyes:

All he said is that there will be regulations, but less of them. You want more regulations I take it. :rolleyes:

[CaptUSA]

All he said is that there will be regulations, but less of them. You want more regulations I take it. :rolleyes:

Uh yeah - if McCain, Bush, Romney or Obama had said that, your reaction would be completely different. :rolleyes:

Cult of Personality.

[Dr.3D]

Would be nice to see them cut 95 percent of existing laws. No way can I keep track of all the laws they have made.

[robert68]

Trumpian flim flam. This can't be done by EO and "Military and national security regulations are exempt."

[euphemia]

Uh yeah - if McCain, Bush, Romney or Obama had said that, your reaction would be completely different. :rolleyes:

Cult of Personality.

Day ten.

[euphemia]

Would be nice to see them cut 95 percent of existing laws. No way can I keep track of all the laws they have made.

Of course I'd like more, but this at least makes regulators pick their battles. If they want a new reg, which two old ones are going to go away?

[specsaregood]

Trumpian flim flam. This can't be done by EO and "Military and national security regulations are exempt."

why cant the regulations made up by people in the executive branch (not passed by congress) be revoked by executive order?

[Dr.3D]

Of course I'd like more, but this at least makes regulators pick their battles. If they want a new reg, which two old ones are going to go away?
They could start by calling themselves, "freedom removers" rather than "law makers."

[CPUd]

they can just rewrite a new regulation to expand the 2 old ones they want to revoke

[Dr.3D]

they can just rewrite a new regulation to expand the 2 old ones they want to revoke
Shhhhh, don't give them any ideas?

[69360]

The intention is good, I can agree with it. The execution is horrible as seems to be the case with anything from the Trump administration. The number is arbitrary. It doesn't allow things to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

They have blown the execution of this and the immigration ban. They are all way out of their league trying to run the country.

[The Rebel Poet]

This one doesn't look half bad.
You can read the text of it here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/30/presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-and-controlling-0

[nikcers]

All he said is that there will be regulations, but less of them. You want more regulations I take it. :rolleyes: What if there was an executive order that said for any new war we must end two undeclared wars. Do you think that would be a deterrent against war? Do you think that there would be any less war? Do you think our foreign policy would be overall different? Honestly I don't trust the government to follow rules set by executive order they have done a hell of a job following the constitution. This symbolism and false hope is not what I signed up for.

[specsaregood]

they can just rewrite a new regulation to expand the 2 old ones they want to revoke

I guess they could if the new regulation fits in the budget cap of $0.

[nikcers]

I guess they could if the new regulation fits in the budget cap of $0. You think the government cares about budget caps? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA6

[Suzanimal]

How about they just cut two regulations without adding anymore? :confused:

[Dr.3D]

How about they just cut two regulations without adding anymore? :confused:
Yes, they need to be renamed to, "law removers."

[nobody's_hero]

It would have been better to make it 1:100.

Rand 2020.

[Madison320]

So far it looks like he's doing some good things on smaller issues (2 for 1, hiring freeze, etc) but not enough to offset the bad things on bigger issues (wall, increased military spending, no cuts in SS or Medicare).

We need to cut spending drastically. That's by far the most important problem.

[euphemia]

They could start by calling themselves, "freedom removers" rather than "law makers."

I definitely agree, but if you watched any of the other discussions going on during confirmation hearings, you would know libs have a whole bunch of regulations in queue. Having a 2-for-1 concept will make regulators think twice about adding new rules.

[RJ Liberty]

Fewer regulations would be great. I remain skeptical at this time.

[Madison320]

Rand 2020.


I don't see how we avoid a major crash by 2020, much bigger than in 2009 based on all the govt stimulus since the last crash. The crash will be wrongly blamed on Trump and capitalism and we'll get someone like Sanders or Warren for president in 2020 with a democratic house and senate. That's why I wanted Hillary to win.

Trump already screwed himself by taking credit for the Dow 20,000. Remember when he called it a "big, fat ugly bubble"! Ha!

The only good thing is that if this next crash finally kills the dollar there won't be much the liberals can do. Printing and borrowing won't be possible.

[opal]

they can just rewrite a new regulation to expand the 2 old ones they want to revoke


Shhhhh, don't give them any ideas?


How about they just cut two regulations without adding anymore? :confused:

scoot over y'all - I'm riding those waves too.. just what I was thinking

[BSWPaulsen]

I will count this a success if two conditions are met:

#1) A net reduction in regulations by the end of his tenure is successfully achieved.

#2) The new regulations are not more burdensome than the ones removed.

It's a (potential) step in the right direction. Cautious optimism. If it succeeds, then I hope the trickle becomes a stream as deregulation gains further popularity.

[PatriotOne]

If the regulators make enough new laws...pretty soon there will be 0 regulations...lol.

100 laws on the book. 1 new would be 99 laws total. Another new law would make 98 laws total. And so on and so forth. Might take awhile to get to 0 though...lol.

[Origanalist]

I will count this a success if two conditions are met:

#1) A net reduction in regulations by the end of his tenure is successfully achieved.

#2) The new regulations are not more burdensome than the ones removed.

It's a (potential) step in the right direction. Cautious optimism. If it succeeds, then I hope the trickle becomes a stream as deregulation gains further popularity.

Well put. Only time will tell if it all just sound and fury or if something meaningful comes out of this.

[juleswin]

they can just rewrite a new regulation to expand the 2 old ones they want to revoke

Its called addition by subtraction. It works really well on rubes.

[staerker]

-Whenever an agency proposes a new regulation, it has to identify "at least two" previous regulations to be repealed.
-For all new regulations, "the total incremental cost ... shall be no greater than zero."
-If there are new costs, they have to be offset by eliminating costs in "at least two prior regulations."
-The process will be directed by Mick Mulvaney, who's set to become the next director of the Office of Management and Budget.
-If a new regulation wasn't already listed on the "Unified Regulatory Agenda" — a list of rules in the works — it can't be issued, "unless otherwise required by law" or unless Mulvaney says it's OK.
-The limit applies to fiscal year 2017, which is already underway.


Above posters would have us believe this doesn't reduce government overreach.

[juleswin]

Trivia

On Obama's first day in office, he signed an executive order to close this facility that is still open today. What facility was it?

Winner gets a rep and -rep to any 2 people of their choosing.

Stop listening or believing what these lying politicians say especially when it looks like it would restrain govt in any way shape or form. It doesn't matter if they talk about it, write about it or show their support. If you don't witness them implement it, it most likely would not happen.

[opal]

Guantanamo?

[juleswin]

Guantanamo?

You win. On that day, he also signed EO

- formally banning torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations
- establishing an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

But I am sure you already know what came of those useless EO.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Trivia

On Obama's first day in office, he signed an executive order to close this facility that is still open today. What facility was it?

Winner gets a rep and -rep to any 2 people of their choosing.




LOL

[nikcers]

You win. On that day, he also signed EO

- formally banning torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations
- establishing an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

But I am sure you already know what came of those useless EO. Yeah I was hoping for a president that wouldn't legislate. I don't see much of a difference only in style and what base they pander to- Obama Killed an American Teen in Yemen -€” Trump Just Killed His 8-Year-Old Sister (http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/foreign-policy/obama-killed-american-teen-yemen-trump-just-killed-8-year-old-sister/)

[oyarde]

So far it looks like he's doing some good things on smaller issues (2 for 1, hiring freeze, etc) but not enough to offset the bad things on bigger issues (wall, increased military spending, no cuts in SS or Medicare).

We need to cut spending drastically. That's by far the most important problem.
Even if you held military spending at current level and only eliminated procurement , left Social sec & medicrap alone you could at least eliminate everything else :) , because other than making money and postal delivery , 99 percent of it is not under the jurisdiction of congress . Be a good start . May get you a trillion a year off the top.

[oyarde]

Trivia

On Obama's first day in office, he signed an executive order to close this facility that is still open today. What facility was it?

Winner gets a rep and -rep to any 2 people of their choosing.
.
Stop listening or believing what these lying politicians say especially when it looks like it would restrain govt in any way shape or form. It doesn't matter if they talk about it, write about it or show their support. If you don't witness them implement it, it most likely would not happen.

Prison on Gitmo . My neg Reps can go to Danke .

[JustinTime]

Well, if that doesn't inspire confidence in our dear leader... :rolleyes:


For every new reg, two old ones go bye-bye. Its not perfect, but to be honest that inspires more confidence in me than damn near anyone in D.C. ever has.

[Zippyjuan]

Already, the action has raised questions, with some speculating that this regulation reduction might just result in regulations that are longer and more complex.

Get rid of two little ones and add one big one? https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/trumps-regulation-eo/515007/

Does a regulation to remove another regulation count as a new regulation?

[JustinTime]

Get rid of two little ones and add one big one? https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/trumps-regulation-eo/515007/

Does a regulation to remove another regulation count as a new regulation?

Ah, the Atlantic. A bunch of people who never gave a fuck about government regulation up 'til now, suddenly care.

[robert68]

Trump’s Executive Order on Regulations Is Welcome, But More Is Needed


...
Unlike previous attempts to impose similar constraints on federal regulations—like the "one in, one out" proposal (http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/regulatory-paygo) from Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia) in 2010, which would have required agencies to offset the cost of new regulations by deleting older ones—Trump's executive order does not specify that the regulations deleted much match or exceed the economic impact of those being added.
...

"Regulations have compounded for decades with very little rollback ever taking place, so President Trump's executive order requiring agencies to identify two regulations for elimination, for every one new regulation issued, is both reasonable and a step in the right direction," says Clyde Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank based in Washington, D.C. "However, it is important to focus on eliminating the equivalent regulatory burden rather than a specific number of regulations."
...
Crews says the only way Trump can ensure long-lasting regulatory reform is to work with Congress. Otherwise, the next president could simply undo any executive orders he signs.

Trump seems to have some congressional support in that aim—as long as he doesn't squander his political capital on other issues.
...

According to the order, there are several parts of the government exempted from the new guideline, including anything having to do with "military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States." Other exemptions include internal regulations dealing with a federal agency's organization and management. Independent agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which have implemented many of the regulations created as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse and often criticized by Trump and others for handcuffing the financial sector of the economy, will also be untouched.

There's other potential problems with Trump's order too. As Franklin Harris pointed out on Twitter, giving federal agencies responsibility over what regulations get cut creates potentially bad incentives. Rather than cutting regulations that serve no purpose, agencies would have an incentive to scrap key regulations that create an argument for keeping those rules.

It's similar to what happens during government shutdowns, when pretty much everything keeps humming along except for national parks—as a way to make a public relations point.
...


http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/30/trumps-executive-order-on-regulations-is
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/30/presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-and-controlling

[otherone]

Its called addition by subtraction. It works really well on rubes.

My maths are fuzzy.
How many new regulations must be passed in order to eliminate all of them?