At Bloomberg former Obama advisor Cass Sunstein praises President Trump’s proposal for regulatory reform:
The action took the form of an executive order, issued in late February, “on enforcing the regulatory reform agenda.†Its text is quite bureaucratic, but it’s likely to prove profoundly important.
The order calls for the official designation of “Regulatory Reform Officers†and “Regulatory Reform Task Forces†within each department and agency of the federal government.
The reform officers are charged with carrying out three earlier executive orders. The first is Trump’s own requirement that agencies eliminate two regulations for every one that they issue. More surprisingly, the second and third come from Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The Clinton order, issued in 1993, requires cost-benefit analysis of new regulations, along with approval by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The 2011 Obama order calls for “retrospective review†of existing regulations, with the goal of getting rid of those that don’t make sense. By requiring adherence to the Clinton and Obama orders, the Trump administration has signaled a degree of continuity with what came before. That’s a good idea (and it’s hardly deconstruction).
and
Because the White House itself lacks the capacity to scrutinize the stock of existing regulations, the Trump administration was smart to call for task forces within each agency to do that — and to require them to engage with the public to see which regulations are really causing trouble.
In addition, Trump’s emphasis on cost-benefit analysis is both welcome and hugely important. Some regulations impose significant costs, and the private sector really doesn’t like them. But they also create significant benefits, by helping consumers save money, preventing illness and saving lives. It would be a mistake, and it could be a tragedy, to repeal them.
It’s a fact that American businesses aren’t run the way they were 50 years ago but the sad truth is that the federal government largely is. Practical strategies like this are what we might hope for from an administration with experience outside government.
As I’ve said before I didn’t vote for Trump and would prefer that he not be president. I saw Mr. Sunstein’s post some time ago and thought about taking note of it at the time but didn’t want to be construed as praising Trump. I decided to try to make lemonade out of lemons and celebrate the good.
I am just a bit confused. He says Clinton started the cost-benefit analysis, then gives Trump credit for it. Trump is requiring 2 rules to be eliminated for every new one, which seems kind of stupid. However, the task force within each agency might work. How will they fund that? Will they fund that? Does meetings with the public just mean that the lobbyists come in and rewrite the rules? For example, I am willing to bet big bucks I won’t get a shot at having any input on health care rules, but the lobbyists for big pharma get invites. My best bet is that the only thing that happens is that the regs get rewritten to favor those with the most influence.
Ok, skepticism aside, this could be good. My bet is that the people within the agencies themselves would love to streamline their own rules. If the Trump administration will fund the efforts, and keep the special interest groups off their backs, we could all be better off.
Steve