First of all, as another thread today details, Obama has been the most pro-regulation President in last 40 years:
Obama signs bill putting tobacco products under FDA oversight
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act
Banning antibiotics in livestock production
Food Safety bill
Appointed Elizabeth Warren to establish the consumer bureau
Elizabeth Warren Recruits Dodd-Frank Enforcers From 50 States
Enacted shareholder rules on executive pay
Fed's massive data release offers new insight into financial crisis
Panel Begins to Set Rules to Govern Financial System (Volcker Rule)
So let's read what the president really said in that op-ed. Did he say he wants less regulation on business as a principle? No, he said what he said about war: he's not opposed to war, he's opposed to DUMB wars. So let's take a look at the actual words. He starts by reinforcing the importance of reglations, and then says that there are many outdated ones, some of which have stifled innovation and job growth. He seeks to create a balance: keeping the smart, necessary rules that protect us and our economy; getting rid of the stupid ones:
From child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to our most recent strictures against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, we have, from time to time, embraced common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.
Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.
Over the past two years, the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance. And today, I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government.
This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.
Next, he says this new balancing will actually add new regulations that have been overlooked. And then he gives examples of dumb ones that are not necessary:
Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps: new safety rules for infant formula; procedures to stop preventable infections in hospitals; efforts to target chronic violators of workplace safety laws. But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.
For instance, the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month. (...)
We're also getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money. We're looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation. And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for—and reduce—the burdens regulations may place on small businesses.
One important example of this overall approach is the fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks. When I took office, the country faced years of litigation and confusion because of conflicting rules set by Congress, federal regulators and states.
The EPA and the Department of Transportation worked with auto makers, labor unions, states like California, and environmental advocates this past spring to turn a tangle of rules into one aggressive new standard. It was a victory for car companies that wanted regulatory certainty; for consumers who will pay less at the pump; for our security, as we save 1.8 billion barrels of oil; and for the environment as we reduce pollution. Another example: Tomorrow the FDA will lay out a new effort to improve the process for approving medical devices, to keep patients safer while getting innovative and life-saving products to market faster.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698.htmlImagine an institution that never looked to modernize (that is the word he uses) the rules on its books--rules dating back 40, 50 years and more. One can imagine that there is a lot of outmoded or superseded junk on the books. I agree that we need to keep a close eye on this process, and have a voice in it (it is promised in the article that it will be open and on-line). But I'm not concerned that this is some kind of wholesale attempt to "de-regulate" America and expose us to physical and economic harm.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
