January 30, 2017

Trump steals their word: Normalize.

"This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen. There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be normalized control."

Said President Trump, signing an executive order to cut back federal regulations.

"Normalize" has been an anti-Trump word for quite some time. Don't normalize him!


Chuck said...

When you've lost Tony Danza, you've lost America.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Sooo... you don't favor deregulation, you lifetime Republican you?

Jack Wayne said...

Cue the lefty howls. Now let's see what he does with the CRA.

Seeing Red said...

He is correct. New rules, laws, changes then normalizes things.

traditionalguy said...

The GOP Congress Critters need more time to sell their votes for $$$.

Seeing Red said...

At one point, different lega drinking ages in the states was normal.

Now 21 is normal.

bagoh20 said...

When it comes to humans, normal is the most abnormal type. In fact, I don't know any. As for government regulations, normal is stupid, counter productive, expensive and irreparable. Elimination - it's the only way to be sure.

Drago said...

Trump signs EO reducing regulations on small business, as he promised he would.

Chuck hardest hit.


bagoh20 said...

I disagree with a lot of what Trump says, but I judge people by their action, and so far he's been stellar.

Nonapod said...

Over the years I've heard a lot of people on the left conceding that there's just way too many regulations. But they will never agree on specifics of course.

To me, regulations are basically laws. If there's a punitive consequence to not obeying a regulation, then it's functionally the same as a law, is it not? Laws have to be passed by both houses of congress but as far as I can tell, regulations can just be created by pretty much any agency or department at any level of government. Seems a little sketchy.

n.n said...

Adjustments with respect to risk.

The liberal concept of normal is selective, opportunistic, and unprincipled (i.e. Pro-Choice).

Michael K said...

Kim Strassel pretty much opened the door to the CRA with her column last week.

The accepted wisdom in Washington is that the CRA can be used only against new regulations, those finalized in the past 60 legislative days. That gets Republicans back to June, teeing up 180 rules or so for override. Included are biggies like the Interior Department’s “streams” rule, the Labor Department’s overtime-pay rule, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s methane rule.

But what Mr. Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.

Obama avoided informing Congress or publishing rules in advance. As a result, most of his regulations were never "tolled"under this act and can be cancelled by Congress.

Seeing Red said...

Be still my heart.

Congress working 24/7/365 to do the right thing.

No time for mischief.

Finally getting our monies' worth.

Seeing Red said...

Clutching my pearls.

You certainly can't mean to suggest the most transparent presidency in history wasn't?

My world crumbles.

Chuck said...

lol. Wow, I didn't even have an angle in that first post. Apart from the ordinary joke playing on the famous line from LBJ, "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."


Sorry, Trumpers. I wasn't even taking a serious shot at your man.

Rick said...

Regarding the poll:

We're seeing the difference between someone who ignores outrage theater and those who live in fear of them.

Left: We will protest you in the streets!

Trump: Sure, send your obsidian clubs against my armored crossbow cavalry.

bgates said...

Don't normalize him! He's unprecedented!

And not in the unfailingly good way that the last guy was unprecedented, either!

John said...

I like what he is doing here.

But what I really, really, really, like is the 2 for 1 deal. I am not sure how this gets executed in detail but as a concept it is fantastic.

I hope he applies it to laws that Congress sends over for his signature. He should sign no new law without signing 2 repeals.

If congresspeople & regulators can't think of laws and regs to repeal, how about a public suggestion box of some kind?

Let the populace take part.

President Trump has an advantage over most politicians and former presidents. He has been subjected to many regulations. He probably has some ideas from personal experience which ones are particularly useless.

John Henry

buwaya said...

This is nice, in theory, but won't work too well if I know my regulators.

Much of the damage from regulation isn't even directly the rules to implement legislation, which of course multiply nearly independent of oversight and often have only a passing relation to legislative intent.

Worse is the way these things play out among the regulated. A law is an order to fire an artillery barrage on the public. A rule is a specific fragmentation round fired into the public, aimed perhaps, or perhaps not, on the coordinates specified by the law. On target, or what may vaguely pass for one, it tends to explode into shrapnel, hitting people and things at random, plus the further damage from stone shards and other dangerous debris flying everywhere.

And then the public gets busy building elaborate bunkers, and hiring civil-defense wardens who hie them off into shelter at every automobile backfire. Whether or not they are in the legislative target zone.

A concrete case, which I deal with regularly: Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX, in the biz)
Originally intended as a means to ensure accurate financial reporting after a series of financial scandals, of cooking the books, it has led to a whole industry of "SOX Compliance" based on legal safe-harbor best practices that are mostly irrelevant to the legislative intent.

I, and my department, do not handle money nor do we have anything to do with financial accounting. Yet we are required to validate the "security" of our systems, including such things as machine controls and instrumentation, under Sarbanes-Oxley. It means a regular audit of screenshots of authentication settings (only that) for any process or system that connects to our servers (not financial ones). In security terms its like the taxman requiring regular pictures of the barn door to make sure its got a padlock. The windows, siding, and transport of the horses does not matter. It is utterly useless for security, and ignores the fact that the farm books are in the big house, not the barn.

Its done in case some litigation comes up and a comprehensive SOX audit process can be presented that complies with "best practices", no matter how absurd. You see this sort of expansion of regulatory impact and cost escalation in anything and everything. SOX is just an example.

This all will not be fixed without a wholesale top-down directed removal of rules, because the complexity of the system and its public-private implementation and permutations is far beyond the ability of a political system or even of executive administration of the bureaucracy to comprehend. The 'transaction costs' of regulatory reform, if we can migrate such a term, are tremendous, if done in detail. It is beyond human ability to reform in detail.

Big Mike said...

@buwaya, it's a pity that you haven't lived in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area all your adult life, the way that I did. Then you'd get it.

One's standing in the federal bureaucracy depends on how many regulations one can get promulgated, not on how effective they are. Indeed, getting a bad regulation promulgated is a way to demonstrate one's clout because anybody can get a good regulation passed but it takes clout to push a bad one out the door.

Back during the Carter administration it was common to pass regulations that were obscure and difficult to understand, with the expectation that one could get wealthy after leaving government by serving as a high-priced consultants to interpret and explain the regulations. Back in the early 1980s I was at parties where senior bureaucrats were loudly damning Reagan and the Republicans for repealing so many regulations and closing out that lucrative line of work. After twenty four years of Clinton - Dubya - Obama I'm sure that we're back where Reagan started, only a lot worse.

I'm also sure that our resident leftie trolls don't believe what I've written, and Robert Cook will be especially dismissive. Even our blog hostess may think I'm making it up.

But it's all true. Every word I've typed.

Michael K said...

Canceling the enabling regulation is a start, I suspect unwinding these impediments will follow.

Medicine got so entwined in these things that a lot of us just quit.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Sorry, Trumpers. I wasn't even taking a serious shot at your man.

1/30/17, 10:47 AM

And we're SOOO proud of you!

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

You have garnered a lot of links there, Althouse.

cubanbob said...

Michael K thanks for the link to the article. Now if only Trumpy were to compile the list of regulations that are not compliant dating back to the enactment of the law...........

Mary said...

He was saying "normal lies" not "normalize

Fred Drinkwater said...

I abandoned a long career in product development partly because I realized I was spending more than half of my time dealing with regulatory compliance issues, and mostly just documentation of compliance at that.
It's not just the US, of course. Yes, I'm looking at you, Brasil...

Fred Drinkwater said...

I abandoned a long career in product development partly because I realized I was spending more than half of my time dealing with regulatory compliance issues, and mostly just documentation of compliance at that.
It's not just the US, of course. Yes, I'm looking at you, Brasil...

Micha Elyi said...

I call for a return to normalcy.

DavidD said...

The same type of thing happens in Defense contracting, Big Mike.

I got called on the carpet once and had a manager tell me, "It doesn't have to be right the first time!"

They make their money on the maintenance contract, you see--and I was costing them future revenue.

Largo said...

Mary wrote: He was saying "normal lies" not "normalize

If that was so it would not parse.