Trump’s War on Obama’s Regulations Set to Double This Years Goal

[Weatherman2020]

MAGA.

The Trump administration’s war on Obama-era regulations is set to nearly double this year’s goal — and potentially go much further — after getting off to a slow start, according to budget experts.

With plans to cut $18 billion worth of regulations in fiscal year 2019, which ends in September, the administration is poised to boost that to $33 billion, according to a mid-year review by the budget watchdog American Action Forum.

What’s more, the administration is moving toward a regulatory cut that the review said would cut an additional $561 billion, 31 times this year’s goal.

White House war on regulations poised to pass goal 'more than 31 times'

 

[Oddball]

Trimming around the edges, albeit a heavy trimming.

Entire agencies need to be abolished outright, not given a haircut.

 

[Moonglow]

End the Drug War now..

 

[Zorro!]

MAGA.

The Trump administration’s war on Obama-era regulations is set to nearly double this year’s goal — and potentially go much further — after getting off to a slow start, according to budget experts.

With plans to cut $18 billion worth of regulations in fiscal year 2019, which ends in September, the administration is poised to boost that to $33 billion, according to a mid-year review by the budget watchdog American Action Forum.

What’s more, the administration is moving toward a regulatory cut that the review said would cut an additional $561 billion, 31 times this year’s goal.

White House war on regulations poised to pass goal 'more than 31 times'

President Trump on the 2016 campaign trail and in his administration has made slashing government regulations a key goal. He set in place a rule demanding that two regulations be cut for every new one proposed. The administration has actually surpassed that goal.

Major cuts are coming later this year, including savings from deregulating actions targeting pending water and energy programs called for under former President Barack Obama.

The overwhelmingly largest component of the upcoming deregulation is the Environmental Protection Agency’s expected repeal of the ‘Clean Power Plan,’ with $51.6 billion in currently estimated total ‘avoided costs.’ Other rules with notable cost reductions include a pair of significant rules also affecting energy production as well as the first stage of the administration’s reconsideration of the ‘Water of the United States’ rule,” said the review.

And it could reach record levels if it moves faster on a pending plan to freeze fuel-economy standards at 2020 levels, junking an Obama plan to increase them.

White House war on regulations poised to pass goal 'more than 31 times'

 

[Wry Catcher]

The goal to repeal regulations is a fools mission, and Trump and his fellow travelers are clearly fools who seek to destroy the forest no matter how healthy are most of the trees.

The damage done will profit corporations and stock holders, and tump's quest is all about politics and not about good governance.

 

[Zorro!]

The goal to repeal regulations is a fools mission, and Trump and his fellow travelers are clearly fools who seek to destroy the forest no matter how healthy are most of the trees.

The damage done will profit corporations and stock holders, and tump's quest is all about politics and not about good governance.

Great job reciting progressive talking points. Most of what Trump has repealed are increased regulations that Obama scheduled for AFTER he took office. Things that while very expensive were to unimportant for Obama to put into place in 8 years. Yet, not implementing what Obama didn't even bother to implement is: "clearly fools who seek to destroy the forest no matter how healthy are most of the trees. The damage done will profit corporations and stock holders, and tump's quest is all about politics and not about good governance."

Fascinating

All government regulations should be subject to the following 2 pronged test:
i) Is it necessary in order to accomplish a federal goal spelled out in the Constitution?

If that test is met then we go to prong 2.

ii) Is this the LEAST INTRUSIVE means of meeting that goal?

If a litigant can show that i) that the regulation is not necessary for a constitutionally charged task of the Federal Government, then the regulation falls and we are free to make our own choice in the matter.

Failing that, if the litigant can show a LESS INTRUSIVE means of accomplishing that goal, then the government must adopt that means that most protects the Privacy and Liberty and Freedom of the people.

One massive deregulatory action is not included in the study’s projection being discussed here is The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule, proposed jointly by the DOT and the EPA, published in August 2018 and was scheduled to be finalized in March 2019. Though the agencies missed that date, they still may finalize the rule by the end of FY 2019. As proposed, the rule would result in an estimated $563.6 billion in total savings – an amount that would cover the entire FY 2019 regulatory budget more than 31 times.

White House war on regulations poised to pass goal 'more than 31 times'

A People Freed To Excel.

.

 

[longknife]

The goal to repeal regulations is a fools mission, and Trump and his fellow travelers are clearly fools who seek to destroy the forest no matter how healthy are most of the trees.

The damage done will profit corporations and stock holders, and tump's quest is all about politics and not about good governance.

Great job reciting progressive talking points. Most of what Trump has repealed are increased regulations that Obama scheduled for AFTER he took office. Things that while very expensive were to unimportant for Obama to put into place in 8 years. Yet, not implementing what Obama didn't even bother to implement is: "clearly fools who seek to destroy the forest no matter how healthy are most of the trees. The damage done will profit corporations and stock holders, and tump's quest is all about politics and not about good governance."

Fascinating

All government regulations should be subject to the following 2 pronged test:
i) Is it necessary in order to accomplish a federal goal spelled out in the Constitution?

If that test is met then we go to prong 2.

ii) Is this the LEAST INTRUSIVE means of meeting that goal?

If a litigant can show that i) that the regulation is not necessary for a constitutionally charged task of the Federal Government, then the regulation falls and we are free to make our own choice in the matter.

Failing that, if the litigant can show a LESS INTRUSIVE means of accomplishing that goal, then the government must adopt that means that most protects the Privacy and Liberty and Freedom of the people.

One massive deregulatory action is not included in the study’s projection being discussed here is The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule, proposed jointly by the DOT and the EPA, published in August 2018 and was scheduled to be finalized in March 2019. Though the agencies missed that date, they still may finalize the rule by the end of FY 2019. As proposed, the rule would result in an estimated $563.6 billion in total savings – an amount that would cover the entire FY 2019 regulatory budget more than 31 times.

White House war on regulations poised to pass goal 'more than 31 times'

A People Freed To Excel.

View attachment 256945

.

Per your signature - as long as she doesn't have to compete against some boob guy who wants to believe he's a she.