Hidden in Plain Sight

Thanks to everyone who responded! I see some old friends and some new ones too. But everything considered, I’m wondering what people would say if Donald Trump issued an executive order mandating every government agency to issue twice as many regulations as it did last year. I suspect that no one would say it would make no difference, because you can do just as much damage with one regulation as you can with two, etc. I would expect people to observe that the sheer number of regulations (coupled inseparably with the number of interpreters required for those regulations) is an enormous tax on the public; that they would prefer a tax code with half as many provisions as the current one, even if it made them pay the same tax; that an encouragement to issue more regulations is an encouragement to make regulation more chronic and more extensive; and so forth—standard libertarian arguments that don’t seem to be operating in reverse, in the current case.

Dear Stephen,

I'll admit that I heard this proposal but thought of it as just a hollow proposition, not as far as being an actual executive order. Another subject for deregulation action that I remember is about stripping down the Dodd-Frank act. During the convention, I remember that his son, Jr., said that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be properly called the billionaire protection bureau since the law requires you to have a battalion of accountants and lawyers to make sure that your business is in the clear. I thought that this comment made a lot of since, because some small upstart business owner will probably not have enough money to employ the necessary accountants and lawyers, while the established businesses will have enough money to comply with the law and preserve their monopoly.

The problem is like you mentioned about the executive order, the devil is in the details. Just like the hindrance due to regulations requires an army of enforcers to carry out the law, removing the law has a ton of variables that have to be addressed. It's like repealing Obamacare, not only do the politicians need to remove the bad aspects of the law, but they have to preserve the so-called good parts of the law. When you consider that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a 2,000 plus page law, there's a whole lot of work to do. The other problem is that I take things politicians say with a grain of salt. What they say about the law doesn't matter, it's what they actually do that counts. Good job of staying on the lookout to see what is done.

Best Wishes,
Scott

First of all, nobody is going to start a riot over the size of the federal register. Secondly, some of Trump's early words (and actions) have been disquieting to say the least, particularly given the wrongheaded, deliberately incorrect, and sometimes libelous pronouncements he has issued over the years. His possible future actions on fronts other than government regulation are of concern to many, many people, including lovers of freedom. As to the silence on this matter from people on the left, they (and others to their right) have concerns about Trump that go beyond his supposed desire to make government smaller.

Perspective is everything, or almost so. If Obama's voice had been heard on the p***y-grabbing tape, evangelicals and many others would have been howling for the man's head. But Trump's voice left them mute on the subject, at least once they saw how the political winds were blowing. Same thing with many of Trump's initial words and actions as president. Had a Democrat been the author of these, some people would've been quick to criticize the new president as disqualified for office, authoritarian, etc. They would have sought to delegitimize him. Indeed, the author of this piece seems to forget the rallies at which Obama was characterized as a Muslim (for some Americans a designation even worse than fascist), caricatured as a monkey or ape, and accused of destroying the America "we" (i.e., white people) had known before his election to office.

The ivory tower is a terrible place to issue pronouncements from. Tenured professors at major universities have no real day-to-day worries except those of their own making, or those sent to them by God. People in the real world have legitimate concerns about President Trump -- concerns that override anything he may do about what is for many of them the rather abstract issue of federal regulation.

Let me quickly add that I operate two businesses that are affected by government regulation; both the Feds and my state make it somewhat harder for me to make a living. I'd love to get the government off my back, but I'm not overly impressed by a pronouncement delivered by a notorious fibber and truth-bender. There's a lot more to worry about than be thankful for when it comes to Trump.

"One of Donald Trump's first acts as president was to order federal agencies to repeal two regulations every time they propose one."

No, one of Donald Trump's first acts as president was to order federal agencies to identify two regulations for repeal every time they propose one.

Not to actually repeal two regulations.

Just to identify two regulations.

There's a difference.

Some plausible reasons why people aren't paying much attention to Trump's order:

1. People have grown accustomed to not taking what Trump says, or even does, very seriously, since he is prone to changing his mind, sometimes without even admitting that he did.

2. As you mentioned, agencies could just replace 10 regulations with one that is nastier than those 10 combined.

3. The real issue is the substance of the regulations, and how burdensome (or sometimes even beneficial) they might be. The sheer number of regulations is only part of the story.