Foreign policy, budgets, deficits, immigration,
healthcare—the president’s annual State of the Union address covers a lot of
ground. But in some areas, it doesn't cover enough. In his speech last week,
President Obama didn’t see fit to talk about federal regulation. In fact, he used
the word "regulation" not once in his entire speech. And his recent
predecessors haven’t done much better. Why is this?
Regulation is not a glamorous issue, and the State of the
Union is one of This
Town’s most glamorous events. Regulation also lacks the apocalyptic urgency
of chronic deficits and the coming entitlement crunch. It doesn’t make for a
good venue for partisan brinksmanship. And it lacks both the "if it
bleeds, it leads" journalistic appeal of drone strikes and Orwellian drama
of NSA surveillance excesses.....Regulation, according to our estimates, imposes a $1.8 trillion
annual burden on the American economy. In sectors ranging from energy to
finance to health care, it's been holding back the economy even more than
government spending.......Congress has delegated
away far too much legislative power to agencies, and the result is
"regulation without representation."
.....Once a rule is in the books, it is nearly impossible to
get rid of it, no matter how unpopular or burdensome. That's why all new
regulations should come with automatic sunsets after, say, five years, unless
Congress votes to renew them.....Read more:
No comments:
Post a Comment