The Senate finally got around to confirming one of the many appointees Trump has requested after a contentious delay. Ms Rao was a law professor at George Mason University. Among her many skills was that she founded a free-market-oriented Center for the Study of the Administrative State at the university in northern Virginia. Her focus as a Trump appointee will be to continue Trump’s push to ease what advocates see as burdensome regulations.
According to an article written by Government Executive Management’s Charles Clark, nine days after she was confirmed by the Senate as administrator of OIRA, one of her first major steps was to roll out the semiannual Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Ms. Rao spoke to reporters about the report and said that the preview is “the beginning of a kind of fundamental regulatory reform and a reorientation of where we’re going with regulation.” Its main function according to the report is amending and eliminating regulations that are ineffective, duplicative, and obsolete.
The Administration by comparing, considering cost to consumers, trimming, and combining hopes to promote economic growth and innovation and protect individual liberty. For many years, people have complained that they were confused by regulatory duplicate rules and at times counter regulatory demands as well as the sheer volume of regulations that were being piled on them yearly without having older or ineffective regulations removed. Often those mountains of regulations caused more harm than good.
In hard numbers, the agenda already in Trump’s first five months produced “quantifiable annualized cost savings estimated at $22 million, compared to $6.8 billion in annualized costs due to rules finalized during last five months of fiscal year 2016,” the document said.
In line with Trump’s executive order calling for two rules to be killed for every new one introduced, agencies withdrew 469 actions proposed in the Obama administration’s fall 2016 uniform agenda, and “reconsidered 391 active actions by reclassifying them as long-term (282) and inactive (109), allowing for further careful review.”
Economically significant regulations (those impacting the economy at $100 million annually or greater) dropped from 58 percent to 50 percent since the Obama team’s tally. And for the first time, OIRA announced, agencies will post and make public their list of “inactive” rules, providing notice to the public of regulations still being reviewed or considered.
White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney previewed the unified agenda as a key part of “MAGAnomics” (for Make America Great Again). He said the administration is ahead of schedule on the two-for-one goal.
“In the first five months of this administration alone the net cost of our regulatory agenda has been less than zero dollars,” he said, noting that part of that rollback was achieved through Congress’ rare use of the Congressional Review Act passed in the 1990s.
The new agenda was welcomed by Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the free-market-oriented Competitive Enterprise Institute. “People who favor a slowdown in regulation are going to be pleased,” he told Government Executive, pointing to the number of regulatory actions expected in the next year. At 1,732, that number is a 20 percent drop from Obama’s final uniform agenda.
Trump’s raw numbers are “roughly in line with what you saw at a comparable time in the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations—a few thousand economically significant rules a year,” Crews said. But his center still needs to “tease through” the rules to see which ones have a deregulatory focus, and Trump’s “overall total number of rules is lower than Obama’s,” while the number of pages in the Federal Register is about a third as high as last year, Crews added.
Liberal leaning advocates for massive governmental regulations, of course, objected to several things commenting about extremely dangerous risks arising from the “data oriented minimalist federal” approach that would eliminate and create more hazards for families from one danger or another even as they loosened restrictions and regulations on industry.
Read the entire article HERE.
The liberal comments continue to show how protective agencies are of their actions and any power they may have grabbed for themselves.
I read several that had been rolled back by congress. I grant you there was a good bit of reasonableness to their information but those same regulations Should have been placed through congress as bills to enact into law NOT arbitrarily as regulations. Plus it was obvious that each of those regulations did not take into account regulations already in place either in their own agencies or in equally relevant other agencies. There also appeared to be no regulation comparisons or eliminations, cost feasibility studies, or management agency requirements which would definitely effect budgets and costs to consumers, taxpayers, or businesses.
The more hoops to jump through often equates to extensive years before implementation, which makes it less likely that businesses or individuals would even attempt to start projects. Of course, in some instances the more green passed about, the faster the action was taken care of.
Apparently liberals would rather continue piling on regulations rather than reviewing older regulations or one already in force by other agencies. But then that smacks of more work. They would rather continue hiring more government workers than consider the taxpayer’s pockets.
I actually agree with the need to protect consumers and residents from abusive and illegal actions by corporations. Frankly I have seen how an area can be destroyed and the health of residents affected for generations by their actions. However, when two or three agencies make regulations that counter the others or the same regulation could be an overall law then it becomes a deep well for conscientious or money hungry industries to fall into where they either suffocate from penalties or hide from liability…then the locals become victims by default not just in the short-term but for generations in the future.
When the EPA and other governmental agencies making those regulations are themselves the culprits and responsible for poor decisions which destroy beautiful waterways and lands–TO WHOM DO CITIZENS TURN?
Obviously not a lot of congress members because they seem to pass bills, pocket their portion of funds, and ignore local voices who are in distress.
Certainly not the agencies as they deny culpability–neither appearing to force compliance of their own regulations within department nor firing those that have created the issues.
States and local groups are often frustrated by long delays in responses or lack of funding which by law should have been applied right away, so citizens can’t turn to them. They have little power except through expensive lawsuits to get action.
For every regulation in the past, the agencies making the regulations have at times become blind, deaf, and dumb to those who break the rules especially when it benefited them or someone more powerful. Federal government does not generally have local offices for quick response especially in smaller cities and towns when issues arise. They often vacillate and drag their heels when local and state could and should be the ones handling the problems.
So to the liberals — fall into that toxic well that the agencies created. It is time the regulations and those writing or enforcing them were held accountable for their actions and actually followed the laws passed by congress–not regulations made up by secret backroom deals, environmental rabble-rousers, doomsayers, and censorship rodents in DC. Hopefully now we will begin to see a vast improvement in accountability and better use of taxpayer dollars.