The point remains valid. Eventually he will be cutting into his own. It is also a silly impetus for legal repeal. Regulations should be repealed when they no longer serve a purpose, not when another, possibly entirely unrelated, regulation is passed.
I, by the way, am as big a fan of regulatory streamlining and consolidation as you could hope to find.
The supreme law of the land, The Constitution, sure did make shit worse…
Here’s my issue with your assessment - you’re basing your opinion of the policy on a “what if” scenario. That’s a great way to paint yourself into a corner (with anything really). How about assume most of the people executing this policy don’t just pick regulations at random and actually do repeal ones that, as you say, no longer serve a purpose (I’m sure there are plenty). Why do you think they’re just repeal any ole’ regulation all willy nilly like they’re throwing darts blindfolded?
Also, yea, eventually, sure they might be cutting into regulation they made - why won’t they then no longer serve a purpose? Or maybe instead of having 2 regulations that are similar, they write one regulation which has the same, or more efficient, effect as the other 2?
My point is, you’re opinion of the policy is based off of thin air at this point. If, when implemented, it turns out to be shit, THEN you can say, here’s why I think it’s wrong and actually provide evidence as to why that is, rather than say “hey guys, this policy is shit because I THINK it could go this way” but then offer no analysis of how it MIGHT actually be beneficial
Ultimately the problem is (like most Trump things) the complete and utter lack of anything regarding details. It becomes 1 more thing that Trump boiled down to black and white when in reality, it’s 99 shades of gray.
Making a blanket statement (with an EO behind it) that for every 1 reg passed, 2 must be removed, is asinine and shortsighted at best. Hell why not make it 3 for 1, or 4 for 1? If the goal is “remove bad regs” then just go do that thing. He’s got the oval and both houses of Congress.
I think that is a rather uncharitable assessment of my views and an overly charitable assessment of 1v2 repeal.
What makes you think I assume that? Tell me, how does a “1 for 2” mandate assist good regulatory streamlining in anything other than a tangential way?
If that can frequently occur, then no need for the mandate. If it cannot occur then the mandate cannot assist it.
If, as you say, it is implemented in a profoundly beneficial way, you can timestamp this and ask for my immediate and unconditional apology, and I will be happy to provide it.
Until that point, I think it is a rhetorically pleasing sound bite, rather than a roadmap for regulatory streamlining.
For the record, I support its goal whole-heartedly.
"And on the waning days of Trumps administration, the only law left to repeal was the constitution. The administration had failed to take into account there was an odd number of laws in force in the land. The final law repealed the constitution, but simultaneously had to repeal itself, given that it was the only other regulation left. This left the odd situation where both the constitution and the law repealing it were simultaneously repealed and enforced in a perpetual feedback loop of shrugged shoulders, and public indifference.
The subsequent legal paradox resulted in a civil war among the attorneys of the land (who had dwindled to a grand total of two, given the lack of regulations). Trump descended from the Whitehouse steps, iphone in hand to tweet “No first amendment anymore, Media. No laws neither. I am coming for you fucks, Road-Warrior style. #MAGA #VERYFAKENEWS #SOONTOBEDEADFAKENEWS”"
-History of the American Republic (published 2060)
…and they’re seemingly not being repealed as it stands now.
my point is I don’t know and neither do you. Why don’t you tell me why in any concrete terms other than pure speculation?
The policy seems to be aimed at establishing a sort of precedent and forces regulators to review current regulation as is. I do not know whether or not that is being done or has been done in previous contemporary administrations. Do you?
I doubt any apology would be necessary right or wrong (it’s not that serious of a conversation imo) - my point was that your assessment is and remains pure negative speculation. My aim is fairness, and in that you did not give any insight into any merit of the policy. You have since I made my remarks.
I agree with your point, at this moment in time, it is a “rhetorically pleasing soundbite” but does have the potential to streamline (and hopefully reduce) regulation. Curious if you would offer up any road map of your own?
I just had a coworker come ask me if I was alright because I couldn’t breath very well reading this. God bless you good sir.
Ultimately (imo) what will happen is no regulations will ever be touched UNTIL a new one is about to be passed. This 2 for 1 deal pigeon holes regulators to ALWAYS have shitty regs sitting around in case they need a new one and can’t find something to axe.
If you want to eliminate regs, eliminate regs. Don’t create a bureaucratic nightmare out of fixing a broken system when you don’t need to.
Trump Budget Proposal:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/donald-trump-budget-blueprint/
Increases defense budget while slashing other federally aided programs. Like the EPA and State Department (that he doesn’t use anyways).
“The core of my first budget blueprint is the rebuilding of our nation’s military without adding to our federal deficit,” Trump said in a letter attached to the budget.
Rebuilding? Defense budget increased under the Obama administration and was at it’s peak in 2016.
You guys realize with out regulatory laws you would all be drinking Flint water and working 80 hours a week with out benefits for starvation wages?
Who is responsible for dirty water in Flint? The government or the private market? Why would you trust the people who can’t provide clean drinking water to make thousands of regulations?
There are quite literally thousands of regulations.
You’re still in the “government is here to protect me” mindset when they just work to make the lives of Americans worse
I assure you I am not.
Ok now this mindset I completely understand. Especially after all the tax cuts going to rich people destroying the middle class and things like the Flint Water Crisis or Katrina.
If we look at how governments work in Canada, most of Europe and Japan (among several others) you will see that governments can (should) and do work for the people.
The trick is getting the money out of politics (Trump’s pledge is a good one…he just went the complete opposite direction).
From what I have read if the EPA had more power they could have prevented the Flint Water Crisis.
As for Flint you have witnessed money and corruption in politics. We all know what was done was illegal in some way, yet nothing is being done either to rectify that situation and nobody has been really held accountable.
Like I said, I applaud the motive, I query the method.
I currently don’t have it. Granted, a hammer is a useful tool, my point is that it should not necessarily be the go to tool for regulatory trimming.
Actually, now that you mention it, I would. I think that any legislation that has not been enforced in a set amount of years should lapse. Let’s say 50 years.
I would also support any reconciliation bills. A long term research bill that combined all relevant statutes into 1 law would be great. An omnibus federal crime bill, for instance.
I also disagree with the deference owed to regulatory bodies to create their own regulations without oversight. I think bodies empowered with the enforcement of a regulatory area should only be rarely empowered with regulations to fill out the “meaning” of the statute. The deference owed to regulatory bodies is, to my mind, far too fair.
Legislatures should legislate, making bodies to create secondary legislation is the go-to lazy response, and I would offer far less scope for it to occur. Lazy legislatures shouldn’t be rewarded for it.
Edited.
I think all governments worsen the lives of their citizens, not just the US government. The US government is just one of the worst. BTW I’m a Canadian born citizen who immigrated to America so I’m plenty familiar with Canada.
I could go into examples of how the Canadian government fucks its citizens, but since this is a US centric board I’m not going to bother.
Why are you in the US? It seems you have a lot of problems with it.
The U.S. government is the fuckin worst, man, that’s why I voluntarily moved here… 
Hmm…I suspected as much.
You spend your time here bitching about Trump.
Why don’t you leave asshole?
Like the last eight years that you spent bitching about Obama? You got your wish, snowflake; your guy won. Now he owns everything. And all of his failures are going to land squarely at his feet.
In fact, you spend your whole time bitching about the US and you’re not even a citizen. Go back to your own country if you don’t like it, you racist fuck.