Regulations impact on economy

One of the most significant differences in domestic policy between the Trump Administration and the former Obama White House is the attitude towards regulations.

According to a Forbes study by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. , by the end of the last year of the Obama presidency, The printed version of the Federal Register had reached 97,110 pages, by far an all-time record. That dwarfs, Crews noted, 2015’s count of 80,260 pages, and it shattered the 2010 all-time record of 81,405 by 15,705 pages.

The overwhelming number of regulations was just one issue. The former White House also established vague, undisclosed interpretations of federal regulations.

The Trump Administration moved quickly to reverse Obama’s paradigm. Almost immediately upon taking office, the new President demanded that for every new regulation introduced, 2 old ones must be cut. Agencies have been forced to comply. So far, 14 regulations have been cut for every significant new one implemented.

Additionally, the White House demanded that agencies place their guidance documents on easily searchable public websites. Bureaucracies are now required to permit citizens to give their input on these guidelines, and they will have the ability to ask agencies to withdraw guidance they believe is wrong. Agencies are also prohibited from enforcing rules that have not been made publicly known.

In 2018, the American Action Forum (AAF) noted that the Trump Administration was slashing regulations at a record pace. The study found that the approximately $16.4 billion in regulations emanating from 70 agencies were cut.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) reports that “In 2017, Trump’s first year, the Federal Register finished 2017 at 61,308 pages, the lowest count since 1993 and a 36 percent drop from President Barack Obama’s 95,894 pages in 2016, which had been the highest level in history.”

The latest Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom notes that “The U.S.’s economic freedom ranking has risen six places, and its overall score in the 2019 Index is the highest recorded since 2011. This improvement reflects the impact of major regulatory and tax reforms on economic growth, investment, and business confidence. In 2018, the unemployment rate fell to its lowest point since 1969. Significant regulatory reform has resulted in the delay or withdrawal of 2,253 pending regulatory actions since January 2017.”

In its 2019 “10,000 Commandments” report, CEI outlines key facts:

The estimated $1.9 trillion “hidden tax” of regulation is greater than the corporate and personal income taxes combined. If the cost of federal regulations were a country, it would be the 9th largest, behind India and just ahead of Canada.
Each U.S. household’s estimated regulatory burden is at least $14,615 annually on average. That amounts to 20 percent of the average pre-tax household budget and exceeds every item in that budget, except housing.
In 2018, the Trump administration issued 3,368 rules. That’s more than the 3,281 final rules in 2017, which was the lowest number of regulations coming out of federal agencies in a single year since the National Archives began publishing rule counts in 1976.
The estimated regulatory cost burden is equivalent to more than 40 percent of the level of total federal spending, projected to be $4.4 trillion in 2019.
In 2018, Washington bureaucrats issued regulations at a rate of 11 for every one law Congress enacted. The average for this “Unconstitutionality Index” for the past decade has been 28 to one. The five agencies issuing the most rules are the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and the Treasury.
In 207, President Trump’s first year, the Federal Register finished at 61,308 pages, the lowest count since 1993 and a 36 percent drop from former President Barack Obama’s 95,894 pages, which had been the highest level in history. The 2018 Federal Register rose to 68,082 pages (however Trump’s rollback of rules can add to rather than subtract from the Register).
In the pipeline now, 67 federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 3,534 regulatory actions at various stages of implementation(recently “Completed,” “Active,” and “Long-term” stages), according to the fall 2018 “Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.”
Of the 3,534 regulations in the Agenda’s pipeline, 174 are “economically significant” rules, which the federal government describes as having annual economic effects of $100 million or more. Of those 174, 38 are deemed “deregulatory” for purposes of E.O. 13,771.

Many medical expert suggest cheapest cialis india its use for aging men. Your doctor will suggest as to how buying viagra in canada much of the potential the man probably holds. You may pace your order there and use your credit card or other payment processors to send your payment. levitra generika valsonindia.com This ensures that more blood is supplied to valsonindia.com cialis prescription online the penile organ to initiate an erection.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

War, Diplomacy and Human Relations

Have humans become less or more “tribal” in recent years? What are the implications for war, peace, and diplomacy? Watch our discussion with Professor John M. Ellis, author of “A Short history of Relations Between Peoples.” The stay tuned for a fascinating debate on the Ukraine crisis with Douglas Ernest, author of The Spirit of a True Patriot: The Inspiring story of Ret. Captain Douglas Ernest.” If you missed the program on your local station, watch it here: https://rumble.com/v5reraw-the-american-political-zone-november-19-2024.html