(01-02-2018 10:32 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not surprisingly...much misleading from trump on what he's actually accomplishing here. Too bad the cons now seemingly want to trust everything from the government when their guy is in charge. Sad.

Quote:While the president has succeeded in undoing some major environmental and financial industry rules, a Bloomberg News review of the administration’s list found almost a third of them actually were begun under earlier presidents. Others strain the definition of lessening the burden of regulation or were relatively inconsequential, the kind of actions government implements routinely.
"They are really undercutting their own credibility by putting out numbers that are not, quite frankly, very believable," said Cary Coglianese, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who is also director of the Penn Program on Regulation. “If I were advising them, I would have said put out something that’s credible."

Trump Stretches Meaning of Deregulation in Touting Achievements

Two questions:
1) For those where the process of repealing them was begun under prior administrations, why waeren't they actually repealed under those other administrations?
2) For those that were relatively inconsequential, why did they exist in the first place?

1. to pad gov't job's numbers
2. see 1

Obviously. It was a rhetorical question. Just want to get it from Tom.

Here's the larger point. Even if this is only symbolic, it sends a strong message that things need to be justified by something other than increasing bureaucratic job numbers.

Here's what I would do:

1) Every new regulation with an economic impact of more than $X cannot take effect until ratified by congress. Every new regulation with a lesser impact is subject to review upon motion by 20% of congress.

2) Sunset review of every agency every 10 years. Review can recommend continuing with or without modifications, combining with another agency or agencies, or outright cancellation. In conjunction with any recommendation, specific regulations can be repealed.

3) And here's the biggie. The real problem if that if you have a dispute with, say EPA, it is going to be decided by an administrative law judge who reports up the chain of command to the executive director of the EPA. I fail to see how that comports with procedural due process. What I would propose is either 1) a separate executive Office of Administrative Hearings, like Oregon and Texas do, or better 2) a separate set of Article III administrative law courts in every federal district, to hear cases involving causes of action that arise within that district. And in either event, I would make the route of appeal through the federal district courts in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than through the DC Circuit. One corollary impact of this would be to lessen the power of lobbyists, or at minimum make it a lot more expensive to lobby, because the power would be dispersed throughout the country instead of concentrated in DC.

(01-02-2018 11:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:32 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not surprisingly...much misleading from trump on what he's actually accomplishing here. Too bad the cons now seemingly want to trust everything from the government when their guy is in charge. Sad.

Quote:While the president has succeeded in undoing some major environmental and financial industry rules, a Bloomberg News review of the administration’s list found almost a third of them actually were begun under earlier presidents. Others strain the definition of lessening the burden of regulation or were relatively inconsequential, the kind of actions government implements routinely.
"They are really undercutting their own credibility by putting out numbers that are not, quite frankly, very believable," said Cary Coglianese, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who is also director of the Penn Program on Regulation. “If I were advising them, I would have said put out something that’s credible."

Trump Stretches Meaning of Deregulation in Touting Achievements

Two questions:
1) For those where the process of repealing them was begun under prior administrations, why waeren't they actually repealed under those other administrations?
2) For those that were relatively inconsequential, why did they exist in the first place?

1. to pad gov't job's numbers
2. see 1

Obviously. It was a rhetorical question. Just want to get it from Tom.

Here's the larger point. Even if this is only symbolic, it sends a strong message that things need to be justified by something other than increasing bureaucratic job numbers.

Here's what I would do:

1) Every new regulation with an economic impact of more than $X cannot take effect until ratified by congress. Every new regulation with a lesser impact is subject to review upon motion by 20% of congress.

2) Sunset review of every agency every 10 years. Review can recommend continuing with or without modifications, combining with another agency or agencies, or outright cancellation. In conjunction with any recommendation, specific regulations can be repealed.

3) And here's the biggie. The real problem if that if you have a dispute with, say EPA, it is going to be decided by an administrative law judge who reports up the chain of command to the executive director of the EPA. I fail to see how that comports with procedural due process. What I would propose is either 1) a separate executive Office of Administrative Hearings, like Oregon and Texas do, or better 2) a separate set of Article III administrative law courts in every federal district, to hear cases involving causes of action that arise within that district. And in either event, I would make the route of appeal through the federal district courts in the district where the cause of action arose, rather than through the DC Circuit. One corollary impact of this would be to lessen the power of lobbyists, or at minimum make it a lot more expensive to lobby, because the power would be dispersed throughout the country instead of concentrated in DC.

Tom doesn't have the capacity to respond in earnest....so you can toss that out with the yesterday's greens in the good luck capacity....

to the bold text (and the rest to a much lesser degree).....that's the crux

I'm easily in your camp....I've stated many a time I'd vote for you.....it's truly a shame there isn't incentive for folk like you to make the attempt....

From reading the article, it appears that many of them take some time to actually fully get rid of.

And nowhere did I ever say that every regulation is necessary and good. I'm all for getting rid of meaningless stuff that just wastes money. The point of my post...and the story...is that trump is taking credit, again, for stuff he had little or nothing to do with.