Archive for May, 2016
From: Article 1 Project
by U.S. Senator Mike Lee, U.S. Representative Jeb Hensarling, U.S. Representative Dave Brat, U.S. Representative Barry Loudermilk, U.S. Representative Mia Love, U.S. Representative John Ratcliffe, U.S. Representative Mark Walker
The federal regulatory state is out of control.
It is out of control economically,costing Americans between $1 trillion and $2 trillion per year in artificially inflated prices. And it is out of control politically, as federal bureaucrats now write upwards of 95 percent of all new federal “laws” without winning a single vote in Congress or at the ballot box.
Editor’s Note: The solution to regulatory ossification is the regulatory budget. See, Regulatory Deossification Revisited.
Rulemaking has slowed to a crawl throughout the executive branch. If an agency does not have a statutory mandate to undertake such a brutal and resource-intensive process, the choice to accomplish its mission through any other means will be tempting. Of course, if the policy issues are controversial, no pathway to their redress—rule, adjudication, guidance, or bully pulpit—will be problem-free. The opposition party made clear, almost as soon as President Barack Obama was elected, that over-regulation would remain among its most shrill and pervasive battle cries.
Ten Thousand Commandments 2016 – Chapter 5
What little regulatory disclosure does exist has suffered under the Obama administration. “The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions” (the Agenda) outlining agency priorities normally appears in the Federal Register each fall and, minus the Regulatory Plan component, each spring. However, these days it seems even this limited disclosure has become too much to ask of a government that avoids preparing a comprehensive and balanced fiscal budget for itself, let alone a regulatory one. Election campaign considerations can cause agencies to hold back on rules or report fewer of them. In addition, OMB now routinely reports on fewer “long-term” planned rules—including disclosure of rules affecting small business—an omission that misleadingly pushes the overall Agenda count downward. The overall number of rules appearing in the Agenda has decreased of late, yet that does not mean regulatory bur – dens have decreased. In any event, counts for the costlier subset of rules are up.
Jennifer Nou, University of Chicago – Law School
Edward Stiglitz, Cornell University – Law School
Southern California Law Review, Forthcoming
Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 16-9
University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper No. 748
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 564