All errors should be reported to

Saturday, September 09, 2017

Trump is taming the regulation beast

President Trump just signed an executive order that makes it harder to regulate.

In January, he ordered agencies to set a cap on the total economic costs of all new regulations. The cap was zero through the budget year, which ends on September 30.

For 2018, look for the cap to be less than zero.

From Politico:
Agencies are expected to “propose a net reduction in total incremental regulatory costs.” In other words, the economic cost of federal regulations must go down. The policy, which was implemented in an agency-wide memo, doesn’t apply to every regulation; many rules are exempt because their costs are minimal, they are required by law or they are related to national security, among other reasons. And OMB still can issue agencies a waiver if officials deem it necessary. But for most major regulations — the type of health and safety rules that get significant attention—the policy could impose new restrictions on agencies’ ability to issue new rules, experts said. An OMB official did not respond to a request for comment.
Given the Trump administration’s focus on deregulation, experts weren’t exactly surprised by the memo. They noted that it just “expects” agencies to cut regulatory costs — it doesn’t require it. But it still represents a dramatic shift in how agencies have traditionally regulated. For all Trump’s deregulatory successes in his first seven-plus months in office, his bigger war on the regulatory system may just be beginning.
This should prove to be a bigger boost to the economy than tax cuts or renegotiating trade treaties that have us over the barrel.

Business executives will be better able to manage their companies without having to navigate the often contradictory maze of government regulations.

Another Politico story -- "Under Trump, regulation slows to a crawl" -- lamented how President Trump has succeeded in shutting down the bureaucracy.

From Politico:
From Inauguration Day until the end of May, just 15 regulations were approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the White House department that reviews important new federal rules. That's by far the fewest among comparable periods since recordkeeping began in the 1990s: Ninety-three rules were approved during the same period in Barack Obama's administration, and 114 under George W. Bush.
The pace of minor rules has also slowed down, though not as dramatically: The Trump administration published 1,005 regulations in the Federal Register from Inauguration Day until the end of May, still fewer than the Obama and Bush administrations but not as extreme a drop. Most of those are small tweaks to requirements and procedures. Under the Trump administration, the government has adjusted the drawbridge schedule of the Atlantic Beach Bridge and designated an airspace near a ranch in Montana. But it hasn't done much else.
The slowdown is a good thing.

Danny Vinik, the reporter, seemed confused by Trump's action, writing:
But rulemaking is the key way a White House shapes policy, and for an administration that has struggled to populate federal agencies and get laws passed through Congress, the rulemaking gap denies the administration its biggest chance to make an impact on how America runs. The slowdown has begun to concern some business groups, who worry that key regulations simply aren’t being issued as expected — and liberals warn it could leave the government playing catch-up with major changes.
Ah, someone has been in Washington too long.

Trump is making the statement that a government that governs least, governs best.

The Internet boomed in the 1990s because it had few regulations. Somehow, without government control of each and every pixel, we managed to make it possible fro a man in Australia to buy a book from a writer in Poca, West Virginia.

But liberals hate it.
“It’s slowed to a crawl, and I’m sure for some folks, that’s a demonstration that the administration is putting their money where their mouth is,” said Amit Narang, a regulatory expert at Public Citizen, a watchdog group. “But for us, this is really alarming.”
A regulatory expert.

There's an occupation we do not need.

Then there was this:
The slowdown is causing problems for certain industries, which had been expecting rules and are struggling to plan in their absence. For instance, the Federal Aviation Administration was expected to release a rule early this year on the operation of commercial drones over people, but it has not yet done so. Lisa Ellman, co-executive director of the Commercial Drone Alliance, said she suspects that the “two-for-one” policy could be creating complications for the FAA. She argued that new drone rules should be considered deregulatory actions because they effectively reduce the red tape on drone operators; forcing the FAA to find two regulations to eliminate, she added, will only hurt the growth of the industry.
“The commercial drone industry wants to be regulated,” she said. “That’s why the industry is very hopeful that there’s an exception.”
Of course the industry wants regulation.

Regulations are a barrier to competition.

The drone industry is wide open, just like the Internet was.

They want it closed.

At any rate, the president promised to roll back regulations.

And it is happening.


Please enjoy my books on how the press bungled the 2016 election.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.


  1. M'bye bye, OSHA! I can think of a lot of regulatory dinosaurs in need of extinction. And the parasites that survive on the regulations need to go, too. Like the Labor Law Poster outfit. Leeches using regulations to suck money out of unsuspecting businesses. Good riddance! - Elric

  2. If Politico laments, I rejoice. Great post Big D, meaty and substantial. I am actually really proud of my 28 years at FINRA, f/k/a NASD, a SELF regulatory organization. The industry pays for it with no government funding needed. What a concept, man. Of course our many critics said it was "the fox guarding the henhouse." Does it not make sense that a major sector of the economy would want to police itself, staffed with a lot of people who formerly worked in said sector? Like, you know, real life experience? Of all things, the marijuana industry is following that model. Smart move.

    In all of my dealings with the federal agencies involved in the securities industry, I'd rate them D Minus. A six month data feed project stretches out to 18, at which point they fire all of their contractors and we have to start over at Square One with a new team. That was nutso shit. That was your federal gubment at work. Drain that swamp, Mr. T!

  3. Fewer new regs? Bummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmer!

  4. Anyone who WANTS to be regulated should be viewed with suspicion. Don, you hit it for most likely it is an anti-competition move. Other reasons boggle my mind such as liberals that cannot do or create on their own and need a hand from mommy government.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Only a Democrat cub reporter could find companies that want more regulation, unless he is talking to rent seekers who live on the government teat.

  5. Considering that even the Republican Congress can't/won't make any cuts at all in anything, Trump is doing what he can to help the American business atmosphere.

  6. Live FOX 4 Hurricane Irma Coverage Saturday

  7. The next thing we know, 6 year old girls will be able to run a lemonade stand on the sidewalk in front of their homes, without facing lawsuits, fines or imprisonment!

    How will they manage without Federal guidelines specifying how much lemon, how much sugar, and the allowed amount of dissolved minerals in the water?

    Why- why- why, it's great, isn't it!

    Dunno what the world's coming to, but this move I can appreciate!

    Maybe someday the Boy Scouts will be able to decide for themselves whether they want homosexual scoutmasters as well, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.