Politics

Trump Wants to Slash Regulations by 75%. Here’s How Regulatory Reform Could Boost US.

from – The Daily Signal – by Diane Katz

During a White House meeting with business leaders on Monday, President Donald Trump pledged to slash regulations by at least 75 percent.

Activists were positively apoplectic, of course, and media ridicule was swift. But exaggerated as the comment was, the larger point is incontrovertible: The unparalleled expansion of the administrative state is crushing America’s entrepreneurial spirit, productivity, and economic growth.

Monday was not the first time Trump stressed the need to reduce “out of control” regulation. As a candidate, he repeatedly vowed to cut regulation “massively” and “remove the anchor dragging us down.”

And he’s right about that anchor; the need for regulatory reform has never been greater. There is virtually no aspect of our lives over which laws and ordinances do not reign. Congress and federal bureaucrats routinely ignore regulatory costs, exaggerate benefits, and breach legislative and constitutional boundaries.

Independent estimates peg the cost of regulation at more than $2 trillion annually—more than is collected in income taxes each year. In the past eight years alone, the Obama administration issued more than 22,700 rules, which increased annual regulatory costs by more than $120 billion. (And that’s a lowball estimate.)

Combined with the regulatory burdens imposed during the administration of George W. Bush, the annual cost of red tape has increased by at least $200 billion in the past 15 years.

But the problem is not just the number and cost of regulation. It is also the approach.

Conventional wisdom has long held that government controls of industry are the best and only way to protect the public. We now know better. Forty years of command-and-control regimes have led to massive, ineffective, and unaccountable bureaucracies.

Based on fiscal year 2017 budget figures, administering red tape will cost taxpayers nearly $70 billion, an increase of 97 percent since 2000. A big part of the increase is the wages paid to regulators—who now number an all-time high of 279,000.

The bigger the federal government has grown, the more essential political influence has become, leading to corruption in the regulatory realm. All of this has weakened property rights, inhibited innovation, and increased the prices of food, fuel, fiber, and minerals.

States and the private sector can and should play a far greater role. It isn’t necessary—or wise—to allow Washington to control everything. States are better equipped to customize policies for local conditions, and land owners have greater incentives than the government to protect private property. Both groups can act regionally when there are cross-border components to regulatory issues.

A less centralized regime would also mean more direct accountability—taxpayers would have an easier time identifying the officials responsible for environmental policies, and the people making those regulatory decisions would have to live with the consequences. Property owners would be held accountable through common law.

Trump will need all of the means available to him to countermand the injurious policies inflicted on the nation by the Obama administration (with help from Congress) during the past eight years.

For purposes of steering regulatory policy, the president’s authority to appoint the heads of executive branch agencies (under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution) is among the most effective. The president also wields budgetary influence over regulatory agencies, and proposed funding should emphasize regulatory reform over the status quo.

Executive orders represent a direct means by which the president establishes his or her policies (although the president cannot override statutory directives to agencies unless the law expressly grants that power). We hope Trump will waste no time rescinding the numerous orders issued by Obama to sidestep Congress, on labor, immigration, and environmental issues, in particular.

The Trump administration also would do well to review all pending litigation and designate cases for settlement, including challenges to former President Barack Obama’s untenable Clean Power Plan; his radical transgender bathroom directive; and the Environmental Protection Agency’s egregious waters of the U.S. rule, which affects property rights

The ultimate White House influence on rule-making may well be the regulatory review process administered by the Office of Management and Budget.

Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is responsible for reviewing proposed and final regulations; managing agency requests for information collection; and overseeing data quality government-wide. That is real power in an era of regulatory overload.

The Trump administration should replace the existing regime by imposing stricter standards for review, expanding the scope of review, and increasing transparency of the review process.

The end of the Obama administration—perhaps the most regulatory administration in history—greatly improves the outlook for regulatory reform. It matters little whether Trump errs in his rhetoric as long as his actions reshape regulation for the 21st century.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Sissel
4 years ago

Just a few of the costly regs: the regulations concerning the fluid in air conditions, the remake of water heaters (making them almost non-repairable) , the lack of water allowed in a clothes washer ( just means you do 2 loads instead of one).
It would be interesting to know how much regulations have increased the price of new a home up.

Frank Netherwood
4 years ago

Trump is doing what he said he would do and that is why he got voted in. We need to support him anyway we can because the Media and the Democrats with George Soros are trying to destroy him. I know there is little we can do but I stopped watching any alphabet soup media and I donate something to help his organisation when I can. I wrote to our Governor and told him how disappointed I am and others because of his lack of support for our President, Our Governor is a RINO and the rest of reps are Dems. So I would say do what you can to support Trump because he has done more in 1 weak than Obama did in 8 years except to bring us down.

Gary Ross
4 years ago

Getting rid of stifling regulations is like throwing fertilizer in the garden. Business will thrive and you can watch it grow every day. What Obama did and Clinton was going to do more of, is throw gasoline in the garden and light it up!

Thank you President Trump! I am behind you 100%!

Gary Ross
4 years ago

There’s only one thing I’d like to thank Obama for, and that is creating the environment to make the election of someone like Trump a reality. Obama screwed up everything. Trump had the confidence of real Americans to make things right again. At first I was a little apprehensive about Trump going full speed ahead right out of the starting gate, and perhaps taking some things a little too far. And then I realized that drastic problems require drastic solutions, and who is better to do this than Trump? I’m behind him 110% in every decision he makes. He’s got my complete trust and loyalty. Here’s one more thought that hasn’t been mentioned anywhere yet (that I know of): President Trump is bringing integrity and respect back to politics by honoring all of his own campaign promises! No politician in recent history has done that, yet he’s setting the stage for honesty from all politicians. I like that!

Al Paparesta
4 years ago

History teaches an important lesson: It is the nature of governments, all governments to expand their power. There are many vehicles governments use to achieve these ends. One of the ways governments expand their power is to convince enough people that a crises is about to befall them and only the government can protect them. Of course what the government does not say is this “protection” will cost bits and pieces of our personal liberties. And the beat goes on.

Tom
4 years ago
Reply to  Al Paparesta

Each time a new bureaucracy comes into existence, its motivation goes thru three stages. At first the motivation is to do what it was set up to do. Once the first person is hired to work in that bureaucracy, the original motivation drops to second place, with the new motivation being, to stay in existence at all cost. This is then superseded by the motivation to get bigger, with the original motivation dropping to third place.

michael z
4 years ago

I suggest an initial target of a 20% reduction.

Frank Netherwood
4 years ago

I would like to see AMAC get President Trump to eliminate the 85% tax that Bill Clinton put on Social Security. In 1993 Clinton made a executive order to tax 85% of Social Security which put a burden on the elderly. If AMAC could get to the Trump administration and see if this tax could be removed it would be a wonderful thing to do.We seniors did not get 3 colas during the past 8 years and what we got would not pay for lunch.

So it would be great if AMAC could get this tax removed and stop all taxes on all social security income. We worked for it and paid taxes on it and we get taxed again because of the democrats and Clinton. SS is not and entitlement like everyone keeps saying it is. It is our money and taxation without representation is what is being done to seniors. Also Trumps should stop the giving of social security to illegal aliens and to people who never worked and paid into the system plus stop congress from using it like a piggy bank and use the money. If congress left the ss money alone there would be no ss shortage of funds!

Lee McQuillen
4 years ago

Much of what you say I agree with – raiding the Social Security TRUST Fund was wrong. However, the tax on a portion of Social Security income is because you only paid half of that money – your employer paid the other half. But, if you were self-employed, you paid all of it. I have to agree that there should be no tax on SS monies, regardless of who paid for it.

Chris
4 years ago

Personally I’d like to see some work done on the idea of using compacts between the States (Article 1 clause 3) to replace many if not most federal agencies. Take the FAA for example. There’s no particular reason that agency needs to be a federal administration under the President. Why is it the President’s job to oversee aviation in this country? Instead, set it up as a compact between the States. Work would have to be done on how the organization was structured, how its leaders/board were selected/elected, how it was funded, Congressional oversight (if any), etc., but once done, move it out of DC, out from under the President, and get it off the federal budget.

Part of the problem right now is that when we elect a President we have one vote that covers so many, often conflicting, areas of interest. You have only 2 choices for President and yet you have to try and pick someone who agrees with you on the environment, labor, health care, national security, etc. Its just not likely to happen that you will find someone that agrees with you on everything. So, lets split out the vote, lets have separate votes for a chief/board members of the EPA, NLRB, HHS, etc — and leave the President to national security, foreign relations, etc. — you know, the things actually laid out in Constitution as the President’s job. States could have their say as well (maybe the governors/State legislatures get to make some appointments). The agencies don’t have to be national in scope either, there could be several regional compacts.

Going with compacts might give us the ability to be more flexible and hopefully find better solutions. The process of moving to compacts would require a thorough review of these agencies. Part of that would be to examine their size and scope, and even the need for them to exist.

Richard Tremaine
4 years ago
Reply to  Chris

I can go along with some of that Chris. I do not see a need however, for many of these Federal Departments that should be dispatched to never-ever land. Why is there a need for a Department of Education. The States handled it before there was a Federal Dept. and they can still. Is there really a need for a Dept. of energy. President Carter established the Dept. to lead in making the USA energy independent. Now, years later we are not energy independent and the Department of Energy winds up with16,000 employees. Like most Bureaucracies, they try to gather other works to enhance their credibility. We have the Homeland Security Agency the FBI, CIA, NSA, and 4 Military intelligence agencies. That’s not all of them. Their employees outnumber the total of at least 80% of all Governments in the World. Is that necessary. Let’s combing them under one or two Federal entities.

PaulE
4 years ago
Reply to  Chris

Do your really want people like Governors Brown or Cuomo or any other blue state Governors or their respective legislatures having a say in anything related to the national level? Are those Governors making sound, rational decisions for their citizens? NO. They pander to those that keep them in power and the citizens of their states get stuck with the bill. Look at the mess they’ve created in their respective states.

Most of the federal agencies your mention should either be massively scaled back or eliminated outright. They were created by various politicians as a way to extend their power. Transferring most of these agencies to the state level and perpetuating the bureaucratic bloat would solve nothing long-term. If you’re are looking to find a politician that will agree with your 100 percent, the only person that will fit that bill is you. We all want a choice of someone that agrees with us 100 percent, but that is an unattainable fantasy as everyone values things somewhat differently from our ideal. Government at both the federal and state level was originally intended to be small in size and narrow in scope.

Pete Fleming
4 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

We should bulldoze the state and federal EPA buildings here at Raleigh and put up a steel mill. We could help to fuel the furnaces with all of the excess regulations. Build a few more nuclear power plants while we’re at it. We need regulation for the greatest Democrat industry: the manufacture of brain dead “college educated” kids eager to vote away their freedom and ours. There should be quotas (they like quotas) one conservative professor for each lib. Reopen the “marketplace of ideas” that has been bankrupt by the currency of political correctness for so many years. Teach them how to scoff back at scoffers like Bill Mayhr, George Stephanopolis, and Colbert etc.

Gunfighterusmc
4 years ago

Politicians should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors and know to whom they are indebted. The reason politicians try so hard to get re-elected is that they would ‘hate’ to have to make a living under the laws they passed. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work.

Hen3ry H
4 years ago
Reply to  Gunfighterusmc

Instead of bashing Trump full time
Maybe the Media could devote some energy to how many politicians accumulate their wealth
Starting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Or would that crimp their style and bruise their sense of self worth.

richard miksell
4 years ago

Too many people making big salaries and making their own laws.

Gunfighterusmc
4 years ago

Less talk and more action is what we need. Our current crop of politicians may have big ideas but they fail miserably in performing. All I seem to hear is: “I put forth this proposal” or “I am advocating this action”; all statements pandering to the interest group these professional politicians are courting. Trump offends some people and eschews the PC and I for one like that approach. Let’s rid ourselves of these professional politicians that have not acted in America’s best interest!

steven jacobs
4 years ago

Get rid of the National Education bureaucracy entirely.

richard miksell
4 years ago
Reply to  steven jacobs

And the Epa monstrosity

Hen3ry H
4 years ago

If we trim the EPA back to what they are really supposed to be doing
The bureaucrats responsoble for the intrusive overreach
Will becaome like lost souls in a vast desert
Searching for the meaning of life.

Hen3ry H
4 years ago
Reply to  steven jacobs

There many school district out there
Who are responive to their respective communities
And do a fine job without the interference from faraway bureaucrats

Hen3ry H
4 years ago

Cool
Get the Feds out of our lives. The Beltway Bubble Crowd have a bit too much power.
Eliminate wasteful, intrusive, redundant programs.
Maybe let the economy grow, maybe save enough $ to pay for infrastructure and maybe create more tax revenue in the process to pay down the debt.
Or is this making too much sense for the Lobby Gang.

Gunfighterusmc
4 years ago
Reply to  Hen3ry H

We need leadership in our government sector that understands the free enterprise business model. We have elected over the last 30-40 years professional politicians that believe government creates wealth. Government does not create wealth. Government only takes wealth and redistributes it. We have become a welfare state and we need to elect people with a firm grasp of economic reality. Say what you will but Trump knows the business model and has a plan to make our economy work again for all of us!

johnboy
4 years ago
Reply to  Hen3ry H

and maybe i can dig a hole in my back yard..with out a permit?? wow .what a concept [freedom]

Gunfighterusmc
4 years ago
Reply to  Hen3ry H

Unless we can rid the GOP of the RINOs, conservatives like me are completely politically irrelevant. In my opinion, the Republican political establishment, for a multitude of irresponsible re-election reasons, has surrendered our principles, culture, our heritage and our traditions without a fight. Liberalism has established permanent economic entitlement slavery in our country with the assistance of these double agent RINOs.

Drjca1
4 years ago

While I totally agree with the idea of getting rid of most of the federal bureaucracy, it is a sad thing that so many businesses have to be regulated. If the people in charge would do what is safe and right for the nation, we would need zero regulations. Sadly, so many humans are simply greedy, self-serving jerks and their thought process is, “so I pollute your water supplies, so what?” Now I’m sure from my comment, the nutcakes will yell about how I’m a secret liberal and other such nonsense. I’m all for cutting down on everything the feds do and control, but we also must take into consideration the weaknesses of humans. wish we didn’t have to.

PaulE
4 years ago
Reply to  Drjca1

There is nothing wrong with regulations to ensure a minimum safe standard or to prevent the very small percentage of businesses that may choose to act in an unethical manner with respect to pollution. However, the vast majority of regulations put forth by Washington have less to do ensuring responsible business practices or limiting pollution than simply expanding the power and reach of the government itself. Government for the sake of government.

Many in government, who have no particular expertise in the areas they seek to regulate and ultimately micro-manage, simply believe that government knows best. That the average individual or business is either too stupid to make rational decisions for themselves or hopelessly corrupt and in need of continuous supervision / over-sight to ensure they neither harm themselves nor harm others. That society itself needs to be managed by an all-knowing government, that is populated by so-called experts, whose views must be unquestionably followed.

If one believes that everyone is either a fool or a crook that needs to be carefully “managed” via an endless stream of regulations, then life over the last eight years of an ever-growing bureaucracy must have seemed pretty good. However, for most of the country, it was eight years wasted by a so-called leader in search of building his version of Utopia.

Hen3ry H
4 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Not only do many in government overestimate their expertise
They usually enjoy secure employment with excellent benefits
Many were also exempted from the provisions of the ACA (OBee Care)
If what these people do is so wise for the rest of us, why would they exclude themselves ?
I think that would be called a rhetorical ?

Gunfighterusmc
4 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

We proved that we can out-vote the liberal entitlement slaves. It will take individual acts of defiance and massive displays of civil disobedience to get back our rights, personal liberties, and our economic freedoms we have allowed liberalism to take away. It will take patriotic zealots, not moderates, and certainly not reach-across-the-aisle RINOs to right this ship of state, reduce the national debt, and restore our beloved Republic to its former status.

PaulE
4 years ago
Reply to  Gunfighterusmc

All completely true.

Your first point is easy, as it takes is one’s own personal initiative and commitment. People either walk the talk or they are just talk.

Your second item is a bit harder, as getting most people to go from complaining via keyboard to actual physical action in the form of large, well-organized protests to scare the politicians into doing their jobs takes finding a lot of people that fall into Item One. I’ve personally found that even getting a handful of people together to protest in front of a Congressman’s local office, to apply a little pressure, can be quite a challenge. A lot of people say they want change, but when the rubber hits the road and it involves their personal commitment to do something, suddenly there is a deluge of excuses for not participating. It seems most people only want to “get involved” if it entails nothing beyond signing a petition or maybe sending in a check to some organization.

Yes, the so-called reach across the isle moderates and the perennial RINOs, who truly don’t want to acknowledge what the other side of the isle is actually made up of, are the biggest impediment to getting the republic back on track. The Democrats have been effectively neutralized right now, so the only thing preventing sweeping changes to restore the republic are those Republicans in Congress who prefer “business as usual”. No hard work. No long days and nights of creating legislation to undo the damage already done to our country, Nothing to interfere with their three or four day “work week”. They are Trump’s biggest obstacle at this point.

Trump is a successful business man used to getting things done in the most efficient and expedient manner to accomplish a goal or objective. Like most successful business people, he has very little tolerance for the “go slow” types, who want to endlessly hold meetings or study something to death and who ultimately accomplish little or nothing. A number of these RINOs are already complaining about how fast Trump is going and how many changes have already been put in place. Those are the people that have to be pressured to either get it in gear or get out of the way and let those that want to work to improve the country get the job done.

Richard Tremaine
4 years ago
Reply to  Gunfighterusmc

You are absolutely right Gunfighter, Why would you wish to reach-across the aisle to a group of Democrats that are Liberal Progressive Socialists who deplore individual freedom and adore a regulated all-knowing State. A State run by Bureaucrats and Congress becomes a PARTY.

Ivan Berry
4 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

For the “Me” Generation who have been so well oriented and indoctrinated by the public school cartel, the reading of their Utopia has become for them, “Youtopia,” and all inclusive, their own personal pronoun.

Lee McQuillen
4 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

In my long life, I’ve noted that most often, those who accuse are those who abuse – they tend to judge things by how they themselves would act. Thus, the lack of trust in people to make their own decisions and to be ethical as they know it all and are far from ethical! You make so much sense!

steven jacobs
4 years ago
Reply to  Drjca1

unfortunately, we have gone past the time for “moderation”-these bureaucracies are accountable to NO ONE and just make up rules by the THOUSANDS. Trump should start from ground ZERO and create sane bureaucracies. In a perfect world I would say you have the right idea, but not in THIS world.

Manny A
4 years ago

Finally a President that intends to act on his commitments. A breath of fresh air!!! Go President Trump!!

Bob
4 years ago

I agree that Trump continue to fight for regulatory reform with all the power of the office of the President. Keep up the good work

Irv C
4 years ago

Finally! Get rid of all this BS regulations. I don’t want pseudo Communism and that’s where we were heading but we were heading into full blown Communism. Go for it President Trump!!!

James H. Rust
4 years ago

Great article. It appears President Trump is going to reduce regulations when you look at his Cabinet selections.

Gunfighterusmc
4 years ago
Reply to  James H. Rust

Just need to get those appointments through the Senate. The obstruction being raised by the Democrats are slowing down actions. The increase in American energy production is helping keep gas and electricity prices low. Oil imports are at historic lows, and OPEC is losing its hold over global energy prices. This has not been the result of any action by the previous Obama administration and congressional democrats; quite the contrary the administration and democrats have impeded oil and gas production. Private enterprise has made this happen. The liar that was in charge would have you believe otherwise.

39
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x