Top House Republican wants ban on new federal regulations

[Deuce]

Top House Republican wants ban on new federal regulations - CNN.com

Top House Republican wants ban on new federal regulations

Washington (CNN) -- House GOP Leader John Boehner said he supports a ban on all new federal regulations, after meeting Friday with business lobbyists who complained about uncertain economic conditions.

"I think having a moratorium on new federal regulations is a great idea. It sends a wonderful signal to the private sector they may have some breathing room," Boehner said.

He said any ban would include an exemption for "emergency regulations" for some agencies and suggested it could last a year.

Boehner thinks the federal government should stop regulating for a year, basically. A curious proposal during a time where his party is in the minority. Is there anyone who still claims the GOP is not the "Party of No?" Boehner is proposing that "No" become official federal policy!

Do you think he would do the same during a time where the GOP controls both houses?

Would he also give up his salary during this period where his job is no longer necessary?

 

[Chappy]

Excerpted from “Boehner calls for less regulation, public calls for more” From NBC's Mark Murray and Luke Russert, “First Read,” NBC News, 12 hours ago
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE]ccording to last month's NBC/WSJ poll, 65% said they wanted more regulation for the oil industry (versus 16% who want less); 57% want more regulation for Wall Street firms (compared with 15% who want less); 53% want more regulation for big corporations (versus 21% who want less); and 52% want more regulation for the health-care industry (compared with 27% who want less).

Thankfully, Americans don't agree with Boehner.

 

[MaggieD]

I remember a story a number of years ago about doctors (NY, I think) who went on strike. The death rate went down. (I tried to find something on the internet about it to post, but it was all lengthy and most claimed the data was not flawed, but could be explained in other ways.

How about just sending Congress on an extended vacation?? No more spending...no more new laws. I'll bet we wouldn't notice a down trend -- and might even find it refreshing.

 

[mike2810]

Americans don't agree with Obama on immigration. 57% says AZ law is just right and 17% say it doesn't go far enough.
Poll: Support for Arizona Immigration Law Hits 57 Percent - Political Hotsheet - CBS News .
Thankfully, Americans don't agree with the Dems and Obama on immigration.
Why can't one party disagree with the other, thats politics. I could very easy say the Dems are the party of No because they don't agree with how most Americans would like to see "illegal" immigratiion handled.

Now back on topic.: I would rather see well though out regulation become law than some rushed, supplement riders laden bill get pushed through. Both parties are so partisan that they both have lost sight of what is good for the US.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

The problem is, when legislators make a bill that is “well thought out,” it means that they’ve put lots of thought into maximizing loopholes and earmarks for themselves and their cronies.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Top House Republican wants ban on new federal regulations - CNN.com



Boehner thinks the federal government should stop regulating for a year, basically. A curious proposal during a time where his party is in the minority. Is there anyone who still claims the GOP is not the "Party of No?" Boehner is proposing that "No" become official federal policy!

Do you think he would do the same during a time where the GOP controls both houses?

Would he also give up his salary during this period where his job is no longer necessary?

That would be a pretty awesome to tell you the truth.
Next they could go through the federal registry and try to reduce redundancies & ridiculous laws by 25%.

Not a horrible idea after all.

 

[TurtleDude]

That would be a pretty awesome to tell you the truth.
Next they could go through the federal registry and try to reduce redundancies & ridiculous laws by 25%.

Not a horrible idea after all.

libs tend to operate on the concept that if society isn't perfect we have to keep making more and more and more laws.

its the same mentality of taxing our way to prosperity. The same mentality that caused Washington's doctors to bleed him to death.

libs think if 100000 laws don't cure society's problems another 100000 laws on top of them will rather than realizing most of our problems come from TOO MUCH Government and the normal reactions to it

 

[American]

Obama, the communist man-child.

 

[Goshin]

Not the worst idea I've heard by far.

A good many people don't realize how much power Congress has invested in the bureaucracies. Huge, inefficient and insulated from the will (and wrath) of the people, these bureaucracies have been given the power to pass regulations independently that have the force of law, using delegated Congressional power. In essense, laws (with punishments!) are being passed that are NOT being reviewed by elected officials.

I have problems with this.

Rather than a temporary moratorium, I'd prefer a law that has Congress review all new regulations individually and vote up/down on them. The bureaucracies need to be kept carefully in check, they are becoming unelected legislative bodies.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's an absurd proposal given how lax regulation has had a hand in the financial crisis and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

 

[Deuce]

libs tend to operate on the concept that if society isn't perfect we have to keep making more and more and more laws.

its the same mentality of taxing our way to prosperity. The same mentality that caused Washington's doctors to bleed him to death.

libs think if 100000 laws don't cure society's problems another 100000 laws on top of them will rather than realizing most of our problems come from TOO MUCH Government and the normal reactions to it

Conservatives, on the other hand, think that the Holy Free Market will cure all ails and would never, ever do harm to people. Hyperbole is fun!

 

[rathi]

Like any law that passes congress, regulation can vary from crucial to impossibly stupid. Mandating that our food not contain large quantities of arsenic is a pretty good idea. Dropping 10 thousand dollar fines for an unscripted swear word on TV probably isn't. A blanket ban is far too overbroad. Of course Boehner already mentioned "exemptions", so its really not a blanket ban anyway, just grandstanding,

 

[American]

Not the worst idea I've heard by far.

A good many people don't realize how much power Congress has invested in the bureaucracies. Huge, inefficient and insulated from the will (and wrath) of the people, these bureaucracies have been given the power to pass regulations independently that have the force of law, using delegated Congressional power. In essense, laws (with punishments!) are being passed that are NOT being reviewed by elected officials.

I have problems with this.

Rather than a temporary moratorium, I'd prefer a law that has Congress review all new regulations individually and vote up/down on them. The bureaucracies need to be kept carefully in check, they are becoming unelected legislative bodies.

The Supremes could end this sort of thing.

 

[Deuce]

Like any law that passes congress, regulation can vary from crucial to impossibly stupid. Mandating that our food not contain large quantities of arsenic is a pretty good idea. Dropping 10 thousand dollar fines for an unscripted swear word on TV probably isn't. A blanket ban is far too overbroad. Of course Boehner already mentioned "exemptions", so its really not a blanket ban anyway, just grandstanding,

His only exemptions, as I read it, were for "emergencies," something vague and unspecified.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It's an absurd proposal given how lax regulation has had a hand in the financial crisis and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The rules already exist, lax enforcement has been the problem.

"The Federal Register is the main source for the U.S. federal government agencies':

* Proposed new rules and regulations;
* Final rules;
* Changes to existing rules; and
* Notices of meetings and adjudicatory proceedings.

In essence, the Federal Register is a way for the government to think aloud to the people, and also serves as official journal of record for the approved acts of the U.S. Government. The notice and comment process outlined in the Federal Register gives the people a chance to participate in agency rulemaking."

"The Federal Register is not small; for example, the 2008 Federal Register was 80,700 pages long. Although the Federal Register is quite important from a legal and historical perspective as a record of the regular business of American government agencies, few people read it regularly (even lawyers, except for those specializing in keeping track of developments in it), due to its massive volume and the dry style of its content. The size of the Federal Register is often cited as evidence of the growth of the burden of governmental regulation."

Federal Register - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over 80,000 pages of rules and regulations.
Seriously, we need to take a break from regulating everything.

 

[Deuce]

So you're saying that the solution to lax enforcement of regulation is to not have the regulation?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So you're saying that the solution to lax enforcement of regulation is to not have the regulation?

Nope to review the regulation to see if it has an actual purpose or if it's redundant.
I guess I'm being an idealist, expecting congress and the president to do some self reflection on what really works and what doesn't.

Lets be real here, do you really believe that a change in office is really going to change the way the laws and regulations are enforced?
Most likely not going to happen in most instances.

 

[Deuce]

Nope to review the regulation to see if it has an actual purpose or if it's redundant.
I guess I'm being an idealist, expecting congress and the president to do some self reflection on what really works and what doesn't.

Lets be real here, do you really believe that a change in office is really going to change the way the laws and regulations are enforced?
Most likely not going to happen in most instances.

What I think a lot of libertarians forget is that most of these regulations, or at least the agencies that created them, came about because there was a need for it. Regulators didn't just decide one day "Hey! We should limit the amount of arsenic in drinking water and make up some ways to test that!"
Yeah, there's probably some redundancy in regulations, but I doubt there are really that many regulations where you'd read them and say "Oh hey, this regulation is actually harmful to people."
EPA, FDA, FAA, most of these came about as a result of powerful public outcry because private industry was quite literally killing people in the pursuit of greater profit.
My personal favorite:
Radithor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radioactive water. It was around for a while, but then some famous guy's jaw fell off and the FDA was given greater power to regulate such things.

edit: Not to be bashing on libertarianism. The philosophy is fine, I just think its implementation isn't always thought very well through.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What I think a lot of libertarians forget is that most of these regulations, or at least the agencies that created them, came about because there was a need for it. Regulators didn't just decide one day "Hey! We should limit the amount of arsenic in drinking water and make up some ways to test that!"
Yeah, there's probably some redundancy in regulations, but I doubt there are really that many regulations where you'd read them and say "Oh hey, this regulation is actually harmful to people."
EPA, FDA, FAA, most of these came about as a result of powerful public outcry because private industry was quite literally killing people in the pursuit of greater profit.
My personal favorite:
Radithor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radioactive water. It was around for a while, but then some famous guy's jaw fell off and the FDA was given greater power to regulate such things.

There are plenty of stupid regulations and things like poisoning water & meat are already illegal before you "regulate" them.
It comes down to lax enforcement most of the time.

Public outcry is a stupid measurement of need because the public is generally very unaware of the reality and scope of these problems.

The financial bill that just passed is a big exercise in stupid.
They put some halfway decent stuff in it, which isn't the majority of the bill.
The rest was stuff that didn't cause the financial collapse or they left the regulation to committees whose recommendations could be ignored.
Then the next time we have another market collapse, it'll all be blamed again on the "free market."

 

[Deuce]

There are plenty of stupid regulations and things like poisoning water & meat are already illegal before you "regulate" them.
It comes down to lax enforcement most of the time.

Public outcry is a stupid measurement of need because the public is generally very unaware of the reality and scope of these problems.

The financial bill that just passed is a big exercise in stupid.
They put some halfway decent stuff in it, which isn't the majority of the bill.
The rest was stuff that didn't cause the financial collapse or they left the regulation to committees whose recommendations could be ignored.
Then the next time we have another market collapse, it'll all be blamed again on the "free market."

Ok, but making a car with a gas tank that likes to catch fire in minor collisions isn't illegal until you regulate it. Poisoning meat may already be illegal, but how about neglecting to properly inspect or store your meat? It's cheaper for a company to be lax on such things, invariably there will be someone out there who makes that choice. Regulations aren't perfect and their enforcement most certainly isn't but overall this quality of life we take for granted is largely a result of this evolution of regulation and oversight. I've had people say to me that OSHA is a government overreach and shouldn't exist, but I think coal miners would tend to disagree.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ok, but making a car with a gas tank that likes to catch fire in minor collisions isn't illegal until you regulate it.

That is true but I think wrongful death and other lawsuits have a greater effect than regulation.
Sure lawsuits are a reactive form of correction but they have a longer lasting effect.
Remember money talks, bs walks.

Poisoning meat may already be illegal, but how about neglecting to properly inspect or store your meat? It's cheaper for a company to be lax on such things, invariably there will be someone out there who makes that choice.

Depends on what "cheaper" you're talking about.

Short term, no doubt it's cheaper.
Long term, you're gonna go out of business and most likely be in debt if you handle meat improperly.

You have to remember to though, that as food has become more abundant, personal attitudes towards cleanliness have increased.
Before just getting food was important, people would eat rotted meat.
That's all they had.

Now with modern commercial farming techniques, the consumer is more mindful over the cleanliness of it.
Personal choice of quality of quantity.
An example, hardly anyone eats Pemmican anymore.

Regulations aren't perfect and their enforcement most certainly isn't but overall this quality of life we take for granted is largely a result of this evolution of regulation and oversight.

My stance is this, before we enact any new regulation, we need to stop and see where the real short falls were and are.
The banking collapse and subsequent Ponzi schemes were largely a move of lax law enforcement, crony relationships and irrational exuberance.
We need to deal with that before we add new rules.

I've had people say to me that OSHA is a government overreach and shouldn't exist, but I think coal miners would tend to disagree.

OSHA is a relatively new agency.
Even before it's inception work place accidents were on a clear downward trend.
A lot of people believe that the company is the major offender in workplace accidents and injuries.
In fact the opposite is true, unsafe acts by employees compromise approximately 80% of all accidents.
(I get a weekly lecture on this at work. Mandatory stuff drilled into my head.)

 

[Vader]

Top House Republican wants ban on new federal regulations - CNN.com



Boehner thinks the federal government should stop regulating for a year, basically. A curious proposal during a time where his party is in the minority. Is there anyone who still claims the GOP is not the "Party of No?" Boehner is proposing that "No" become official federal policy!

Do you think he would do the same during a time where the GOP controls both houses?

Would he also give up his salary during this period where his job is no longer necessary?

I think Boener is a raging idiot who lacks the common sense and basic IQ score to be in politics. It's time for him to be removed from the GOP and from politics.

 

[apdst]

Conservatives, on the other hand, think that the Holy Free Market will cure all ails and would never, ever do harm to people. Hyperbole is fun!

And the government is the ones to cure all our ails and would never harm anyone? I'll take my chances with the free market, friend.

 

[apdst]

It's an absurd proposal given how lax regulation has had a hand in the financial crisis and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

It was government interference that cause the recession.

What government regulation would have prevented the human error that cause the Deepwater Horizon blowout?

 

[Deuce]

And the government is the ones to cure all our ails and would never harm anyone? I'll take my chances with the free market, friend.

Did it ever occur to you that there are some options between "total direct government control" and "total anarchy?"