Trump sued over '1-in-2-out' regulations order

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not sure I would go quite that far... if there's a regulation on, say, the maximum weight for a regulation buggy whip, I think we could just toss that one.

Well those are the types of regulations that the independent organizations could mark for fast track or something. I'm sure that the organization could be given some lee way to make that choice. Then Congress can fast track it for deletion. But I'd say a good many regulations should get a discussion at a minimum before we ax them.

But your reasoning is not that bad. So what would you do to make sure more regulations were being approved while, and almost as fast as, old ones are removed? You know, just to get a handle on things? Maybe a freeze on new regulations? Nah, one might actually be needed... oh, here's an idea! The only way to get a new regulation is to remove two... oh, wait...

Well in that way you set up regular audits of the regulations on the books to make these reviews. If the audit flags a potentially frivolous regulation then you can raise it up for discussion and possible vote from Congress on removal.

That's your problem, Krazy. In your rush to impugn, you overlook the obvious. Not a single regulation is being removed under this, unless a new one is introduced. It's just a quick way to stop the leak before we fix the roof.

No. My problem is you thinking for me. People declaring they know how I think or what my thoughts are. That's mainly my biggest pet peeve on ATS. So to correct you, my problem is how this EO isn't properly thought out and how it could bottleneck new regulations or cause good regulations to be removed in order to get a new key regulation passed.

I'm not even a lawyer and I feel like I came up with a better way to deal with our regulation bloat other than some blanket, across the board regulation standard. Regulations are some of the most nuanced part of our government and just blanket removing two for every one can NOT have good consequences no matter how you slice it.

By the way, thanks for taking me seriously for all of one paragraph before you started belittling my intelligence again.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm going to ignore that last part... for sake of maybe having an intelligent conversation.

A couple things:
Do we need any new regulations? On what? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, considering we're literally frozen in our tracks in many cases due to over-regulation, to worry that we might need more before we can sort out which ones we don't need. A regulation can be enacted simply by the head of an agency signing a piece of paper. There's no way we could go through all the regulations on the book while agencies implement new ones and hope to keep up. It will simply take longer to undo than it does to do. It would be like trying to bail water out of a boat with a spoon while a bucket-sized hole is filling it up.

Second, Congress doesn't make regulations. Why should Congress take the time to abolish them? The regulations referred to are simply declarations by agencies, similar to Executive Orders in principle. We need Congress to make good laws and set broad policy, not to oversee every dinky regulation on the books. There are probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of regulations that have been piling up for decades.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You never know. Humans figure out newer and better ways to act #ty to each other or the environment all the time that precipitates these regulations. Marijuana is about to be legalized. Do you think those people currently clipping leaves off of buds should be entitled to regulatory protection? What about the product going to consumers? Do you care if is being sprayed with questionable chemicals? These are all potential regulatory concerns the government will have to address when the plant is legalized.

That's why I don't view regulations as just bad. I understand that they exist for a reason. Sure redundancy and bureaucracy make things awful. And corruption doesn't help, but there are plenty of regulations that exist that we should all agree with. Like do you mind if people who handled raw or cooked food didn't have to wash their hands after using the bathroom?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, some regulation is good; I have never disputed that. In fact, I am all for any regulation that reasonably informs consumers. Food labels: good! But we have far too many regulations in general.

A recent thread spoke about an issue with a city requiring homeowners to make some adjustments for new utility services. Federal money was available for those who could not afford the upgrade, but by the time all was said and done, a single regulation on the contractor hired to do the work, one which is easily twisted to provide commercial advantage to those who do not deserve it, got missed. The result was a total mess, with Federal funds held up, homeowners concerned about homes being condemned for not upgrading, some no longer eligible for the funding they originally applied for, and ever-tightening timelines that became totally unreasonable.

That is NOT a helpful regulation.

I believe a lot of the regulations you mention, like hand-washing in restaurants, are actually state regulations and would not even be impacted. If marijuana is legalized (as I hope it will be), the states are quite capable of regulating the industry inside their borders. In any case, the Federal order is temporary and necessary in order to get the house in order. I suspect a smaller base of regulations overall would lead to better enforcement of the ones left.

And finally, there is nothing in that Executive Order that specifies which regulations have to be dropped. That's up to the individual agencies that want to implement a new Federal regulation. Can you imagine the political fallout if the EPA decided to impose a new regulation on carbon dioxide by removing the ones on sulfur content and particulates?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I haven't heard anything about this EO being temporary. That is often used for his muslim ban *ahem* pause on immigration from suspected countries from terrorism, but I can't recall anyone mentioning that this one was only a stop-gap measure.

But like I said, I'm all for getting rid of regulations. I just want it done in a sane and controlled manner. Trump's plan is too haphazard and ripe for abuse. You can project all the good intentions you want on it, but I don't see any protections for the stuff we both agree would agree are sensible regulations. Not when all regs are viewed equally like this.

I care about the nuance, VERY deeply. I want the government to run more efficiently, not not at all.

And finally, there is nothing in that Executive Order that specifies which regulations have to be dropped. That's up to the individual agencies that want to implement a new Federal regulation. Can you imagine the political fallout if the EPA decided to impose a new regulation on carbon dioxide by removing the ones on sulfur content and particulates?

So you don't see any problems with an agency self-regulating to get rid of the chafe? These are the same agencies that blow their whole budget on pens and other unneeded office supplies at the end of the year all so they get the same money the next year.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I haven't heard anything about this EO being temporary.

I never read it as anything but. It seems self-evident to me, even if not specifically enumerated. As a permanent order, it would eventually do more harm than good. As a temporary measure it makes perfect sense.

Trump's plan is too haphazard and ripe for abuse.

The present system, with no limits, no real accountability, and no inter-agency coordination, is completely haphazard. I fail to see how anything could make that worse. Even an Executive Order demanding haphazardness would do little damage in that respect.

So you don't see any problems with an agency self-regulating to get rid of the chafe?

They self-regulate now, without the Executive Order. And yes, it's a mess. That's why it needs to be cleaned up.

TheRedneck