David R. Henderson  

Repealing Regulations

Trump, Krugman and the long ru... Janet Yellen confirms much of ...
Might the administrative state have expired quietly, six months ago? Arguably it did, if what we mean by the administrative state is the array of regulatory agencies, not only executing the law, but also creating binding new law without legislative consent. Bear with me.
With an introductory paragraph like that, I had to read on. And it was worth it. This paragraph is from Brian Mannix, "Midnight Mulligan - The Congressional Review Act Rides Again!," and is published on our sister site, The Library of Law and Liberty. Here's his bio at the site:

Brian Mannix is a research professor in the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University. From 2005 to 2009 he served as the Environmental Protection Agency's Associate Administrator for Policy, Economics, and Innovation; earlier he served as Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia. From 1987 to 1989, Mr. Mannix was managing editor of Regulation magazine at the American Enterprise Institute.

I worked with him briefly as one of the editors of Regulation in the late 1980s. His knowledge of regulation, as the above bio suggests, is both wide and deep.

The piece is well worth reading. And the ending is great:

The May 30 cutoff date for rules in CRA jeopardy is only an estimate, based on the House and Senate calendars for the current lame-duck session. If Congress decides to adjourn earlier, that date could move up. The Labor Department's controversial overtime rule was published May 23, for example, and will soon acquire CRA immunity if the lame duck session continues. Which raises the question, what business are the House and Senate conducting that keeps them in town? Surely not to confirm President Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court. If the 114th Congress is inclined to empower their successors, they might decide the best course is simply to wrap up early and adjourn. Thanksgiving is nigh, and we thank you for your service. Go! Fly away home!

For the reasoning that leads to this bottom line, read the whole thing, which is not long.

Comments and Sharing

CATEGORIES: Regulation

COMMENTS (6 to date)
AntiSchiff writes:

Dr. Henderson,

One thing we can all push for with this very dangerous person in the White House, perhaps in vain, is massive deregulation. I'd rather err on the side of cutting too much rather than too little.

Rich Berger writes:

[Comment removed. Please consult our comment policies and check your email for explanation.--Econlib Ed.]

Khodge writes:

Interesting. The article suggests that it is difficult to change regulations. It has been said that the rulers change but the bureaucrats are the ones who run things. Makes the whole election thing sound pointless.

Roger McKinney writes:

If you want to be really disgusted with regulations read Columbia U law prof Phil Hamburger's "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?"

Charles Baer writes:

Why not include a provision in a Reconciliation bill "suspending" all regulations promulgated since January 20, 2009 until and unless they are approved by Congress? Sounds easier than the course proposed by the article. If all regs issued by Obama were included, subject to re-issue approved by Congress, it would be more difficult for the Democrats to make an issue of the repeal of any particular reg.

Thaomas writes:

Why not a systematic re-assessment of regulations according to cost benefit analysis? The horror stories one hears are all just clear failures to apply cost benefit analysis: the risk of new drugs are (apparently) over valued, the value of e-cigarettes as substitutes for tobacco are undervalued, etc. EPA can only regulate quantities of pollutants rather than tax them.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top