[semiel]

> Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it.

Canada has a variation on this law.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.5/page-1.html#h-...

[akiselev]

It may look similar on the surface but Trump's proposal is nothing like the Canadian red tape reduction laws. The latter are focused on reducing the administrative burden of demonstrating regulatory compliance but it does not impact the regulations themselves except as a last resort. The vast majority of the time, compliance can be streamlined to offset the extra cost of new regulations. What Trump wants to do is cut regulations he and his supporters are ideologically opposed to while framing it as his public service meant to benefit small business owners.

Edit: Also note that in the preamble it specifically says "Canadians and small businesses." This law does not impact, for example, environmental or safety regulations for real estate developers or utilities. Trump will almost certainly try to cut EPA regulations but something like the Canadian law would never allow that.

[jack9]

> It may look similar on the surface but Trump's proposal is nothing like the Canadian red tape reduction laws

You're pointing to a proposal (or more succinctly an initiative). Saying it is nothing like an implementation is misleading.

[burkaman]

And this law actually started in British Columbia as "repeal 2 for every new regulation". It does seem like it could be useful as a short term policy, if Congress can't find any way to agree on directly repealing unnecessary regulations.

[jjoonathan]

Don't worry, if they can't make up their minds I'm sure plenty of bright, helpful, and well-dressed citizens will come out of the woodwork to advise them as to which regulations aren't needed anymore.

[pjc50]

The UK government actually tried this back in 2010 with a website. I think the top rated repeal suggestion was "end paid maternity leave", and eventually the website was quietly closed and never mentioned again.

[dragonwriter]

> It does seem like it could be useful as a short term policy, if Congress can't find any way to agree on directly repealing unnecessary regulations.

Regulations are issued by the executive branch, not Congress (repealing regulations is actually done by issuing regulations specifying the regulations to be repealed, so the process for repeal is the same.)

Also, "a regulation" isn't a well-defined unit.

[burkaman]

Well, from reading a few articles, it seems like this has worked pretty well in Canada so far, so I think it's at least worth talking about. Gotta try to look for some positives here.

[zeveb]

> Regulations are issued by the executive branch

Sounds like the meaning of the executive's order to 'repeal two for every one new' could be decided within the executive branch, then. And since everyone within the executive branch is responsible to the chief executive … maybe it could even work.

[jmaygarden]

Is that true? Regulatory bodies get their authority from congressional legislation. Can a president unilaterally tell the bureaucracy to stop doing what they are mandated to do by law?

[zeveb]

> Can a president unilaterally tell the bureaucracy to stop doing what they are mandated to do by law?

He can certainly try: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/20/365519963/...

In the general case, though, a lot of legislation gives the executive wide discretion as to the details of regulations, and so the president can direct his subordinates to change regulations however he wants, within what the law allows.

E.g. with a budget example the Congress might want to subsidise cantaloupe farms, and budget $100,000,000 for cantaloupe farmers, to be allocated 'as the Secretary of Agriculture may direct.' The president would be within his rights to order the Secretary of Agriculture to only allocate that money to cantaloupe farmers with a total net worth of under $1,000,000, or to give no more than $100,000 to any particular cantaloupe farmer, or (possibly — this one's a stretch) to prioritise farmers of the famed Golden Lucy cantaloupe before all others. But he can't direct that the money be spent on rutabaga farmers.

Similarly, if the Congress writes a law which gives the pertinent executive department some latitude, the President may order that department to exercise that latitude however he likes.

[dragonwriter]

It could, my point is that it's not at all clear what the promise even means.

[russdill]

Moronic metric chasing. They'll just make regulations longer and more convoluted so that a single regulation has the same amount of text as 3 or even 4.

[Graphon1]

I had a variation of that for my household, except it applied 1:1 ratio, and only for shoes. For every new pair of shoes purchased, one old pair had to go out the door.