All errors should be reported to

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Reporters demand how dare Congress write the law

One of the problems with reporters is they think they are a check against the government when indeed they often become mouthpieces for the government -- protecting the bureaucracy from any accountability.

Alex Guillen covers the EPA for Politico -- and he provides the agency's bureaucracy. Teaming up with Marianne Levine, he wrote:
Swift repeal of Obama rules leaves former staffers steaming
'It’s devastating,' says a former Interior Department employee who worked on one of dozens of regulations in Congress' crosshairs.
The "staffers" they based the story on were Democrats Alexandra Teitz and Joe Pizarchik, political appointees whose jobs ended on January 20. While definitely they had policy writing jobs, they did not have the authority to pass laws.

Congress does.

But Democratic Congresses began allowing political appointees to write the law under "promulgation" of real laws passed by duly elected members of Congress.

Reporters like Guillen and Levine were shocked to learn that Congress can revoke the thousands of regulations the bureaucracy churns out every year.

The two reporters wrote:
The arrival of a Republican president opened the door for GOP lawmakers to employ a rarely used legislative tool, the Congressional Review Act of 1996, to nullify executive branch regulations issued since mid-June. The act allows lawmakers to sandblast recently enacted rules with a simple majority vote — as they did last week to the stream regulation, which the Interior Department had completed in December.
President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on that repeal, along with others moving through the Capitol.
Congress has successfully used the 1996 law only once before, but Republicans are wielding it now to slash away potentially dozens of late-term Obama rules. That has left officials who spent years working on those rules feeling rubbed raw.
Actually, Congress has tried to use this Actual Law (as opposed to the regulation the bureaucracy wrote). President Obama kept vetoing such action. Trump won't.

From the story:
“It’s important that Congress have a say in the rules that are applied in this country,” said James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation. “The CRA just makes it easier for Congress and the president to make sure the rules and actions of the agencies reflect their priority.”
The House took up a repeal resolution for Pizarchik’s stream rule shortly before 2 p.m. Feb. 1. The Senate wrapped up its vote — all Republicans but one were joined by four Democrats — shortly after 3 p.m. Feb. 2.
That’s about as fast as a measure can clear Congress, and the swiftness has former Obama officials wondering if lawmakers even understood the regulations they voted to kill.
Yep, Congress can work as fast as it wants.

It took the Obama administration seven years to write it? Too bad. West Virginians voted in November to stop these burdensome and unnecessary regulations aimed at killing the coal industry -- in the name of protecting the state.

From what?

Flat land?

There is a new sheriff in town.

We are going back to following the Constitution.

One more thing, journalists ignorantly denounced Trump as writing law through executive orders. He hasn't. He is setting policy on how his administration will follow the law.

Nevertheless, here are reporters demanding that the bureaucracy continue to write the law through regulations.


"Trump the Establishment," my look at the general election, is available in paperback at Create Space, or if you prefer or (via Instapundit) Amazon as a paperback.

Kindle will be available March 1.

This is the sequel to "Trump the Press," which covered the nomination. It is available on Kindle, or in paperback on Create Space.

Autographed copies are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.


  1. The left's tears are delicious. More of this for 4, and preferably 8 more years, please.

  2. "Alex Guillen covers the EPA for Politico."

    No, Alex Guillen covers for the EPA at Politico.

  3. "journalists ignorantly denounced Trump as writing law through executive orders" Substitute "propagandists" for "journalists".

    These same people were perfectly cool with Obungler writing laws through executive orders. How many times did he change Obummercare using executive orders? Dontcha just love Fake Media tears?

  4. All this is true ... except: it wasn't _just_ Democratic Congresses that let the bureaucracy write laws .... I mean, rules. Both sides did it. Which is why when we say "drain the swamp" there isn't any kind of filter or qualification.

    Oh yeah, this week it's been floated that the Republicans might not repeal Obamacare taxes. Fake news? Or totally believable? Both.

  5. U.S. Constitution
    Article I
    Section 1.

    All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

  6. "There is a new sheriff in town"

  7. New movie title: The Bitter Tears of Leftist Mediaites.

  8. When they hit coal they hit the GDP. The dweebs keep ignoring that. That's a fact, and Obama's energy policies are thankfully being eliminated. It's not surprising at all that the elites/regulators just don't get it. They are skimming profit from the middle class.

    Going back to '74 carbon energy has represented about 8% of the GDP. Fuels get about 5% and natural gas gets about 1%. That leaves coal at about 2% (coal is a step child these days, so, they under report/under analyze the data). That GDP relationship has pretty much been rock solid since the 70's in spite of fluctuations of the petrodollar and oil.

    Their tears are delightful because it signals Trump's mission to put money back into the middle classes pockets (utility bills and employment). And, following what Don said a post or two back "coal baby coal."

  9. Now for the other shoe... The law says that Congress can repeal within 60 working days of the implementation of the regulation OR the filing of the required notice to Congress, whichever is later. Reportedly the agencies were somewhat lax about their "t"s and "i"s. This could go back as far as 1996 for some regulations.

    1. I wonder if there's anyone that's been keeping track of this (which were filed w/Congress) - so we can see just how many of these regulations can be gotten rid of. I'd be more than happy if Congress spent most of the rest 2 years repealing as much in the way of regulations that have accumulated since 1996 - rather than spending nearly all that time making *new* law.

  10. What are they upset about? They got paid, didn't they?

    -Mikey NTH

  11. Lo, it's all passed away like a Mid'Bama Night's Dream.

  12. I am appalled!

    25 hours? Those laggards should have gotten it done in 12!

  13. 7 years of wasted time ... reminded me of Bluto in Animal House

  14. Every regulation should pass Congressional review and have a sunset clause. - Elric

    1. Only regulations? Laws should have sunset clauses too. If it's important enough to be 'everlasting' - its important enough to enshrine it in the Constitution. And by that - I mean that nearly nothing is that important.

  15. Congress needs to get back in the business of making all the laws. They should dump or change the Administrative Procedures Act to comply with Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution.

    If Congress whines that they are too busy to do it, then I propose they take policy people from the regulatory agencies & give them committee jobs on the Hill. That way the number of agency employees can be reduced and the laws will be made where they are supposed to be made.

    1. snip:
      "If Congress whines that they are too busy to do it,"

      If Congress whines that they are too busy to do it - then they need to manage their time better, including deciding exactly what's important enough for them to spend their time on.

      Don't make it easier for them to make new laws. It's already too easy. Why?

      Because as a rule:

      More Government = Less Liberty.