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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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,
It's an absurd proposal given how lax regulation has had a hand in the financial crisis and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
So you're saying that the solution to lax enforcement of regulation is to not have the regulation?
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!"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.
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.
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?
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!
It's an absurd proposal given how lax regulation has had a hand in the financial crisis and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?