Roll it Back to 1991
This sounds like a diabolically good idea. From the Anchorage Daily News:
Alaska Rep. Don Young suggested Tuesday he plans to introduce a bill to repeal every regulation that's been put into effect in the last 20 years, an idea that could have huge implications for everything from aviation safety to oil drilling if it actually happened
"My bill is very simple, I just null and void any regulations passed in the last 20 years," Young told the Anchorage Downtown Rotary Club. "I picked 20 years ago because it crossed party lines and also we were prosperous at that time. And no new regulations until they can justify them."
At least some members of the Rotary crowd appeared taken aback by the breadth of what Young appeared to be saying, given all of the passenger jet safety, pesticide, food safety, banking and other regulations that have come into place since 1991.
Passenger jet safety? Were passenger jets that much more dangerous in 1991? Pesticides? Food safety? Is that all they can come up with?
I remember 1991 pretty well. I don't recall a wave of food, jet, and pesticide deaths. Do you? What I recall the most about 1991 was that I was finally earning a real living.
1991. It was a very good year. Let's relive it again, shall we, in the Federal Register?
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
The 2010 Federal Register was 81,405 pages long.
Jun '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
Personally, I would go back farther. 1946, maybe.
Sep '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
What positive developments have happened since 1991? Airbags. Some good banking regulations. Internet.
That last one makes all the difference. Consumers and citizens are much more informed, and most industries will continue as-is with the stuff that people like and appreciate (ie, auto safety) while eliminating the stuff that irritates people for no good reason.
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
They talk the talk but can they walk the walk? David Cameron's administration promised something similarly appetizing: no new government legislation to be passed unless another piece of government legislation had first been scrapped.
Did it happen?
Er, this is politicians we're talking about.
Jan '11
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
How about 1991 spending levels as well. you can even adjust for inflation.
Mar '11
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
There is certainly something subtly brilliant about this idea.
Oct '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
Steven Drexler: What positive developments have happened since 1991? Airbags. Some good banking regulations. Internet.
That last one makes all the difference. Consumers and citizens are much more informed, and most industries will continue as-is with the stuff that people like and appreciate (ie, auto safety) while eliminating the stuff that irritates people for no good reason. · Sep 29 at 9:56am
Been using seat belts since the 70's, hate airbags. Banking was really bad in the 80's. Really? The internet has prospered despite various government attempts to get control of it.
A good start is to simply limit government expenditures to tax receipts, followed by a full court press towards a simple, transparent no-withholding tax system.
The Constitution defined federal government taxation as limited to customs duties and excise taxes; read; sales taxes. Repeal the 16th and get us back here. A lifetime effort, since it has taken several lifetimes to create this mess.
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
Are federal regulations sunsetted?
If not, then why not a new law saying:
(a) all existing and new regulations are from now automatically sunsetted after -- add your choice of years (5, 10, etc.);
(b) a regulation can be sunsetted in one year with a 3/5 or 2/3 vote of both chambers.
I believe that, under Texas law, state regs are sunsetted after 12 years Legislature has to renew.
Shouldn't Perry be out there stumping for this as a new national standard?
Sep '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
Like most things this would do some good and some bad.
This is naive reactionary politics at its best. I would put it a notch above what those protesters on Wall Street are doing but not much more than that.
Feb '11
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
I don't see how this would work in practice. Aviation rules, for example, are often highly specific to an aircraft or engine, or even a narrower definition...for example, an Airworthiness Directive requiring all Boeing 777s in a particular serial number range to undergo a particular maintenance procedure within the next 100 flight hours. And in 1991, there *weren't* any Boeing 777s.
I would imagine that medical device regulations are simiar.
Edited on Sep 29, 2011 at 11:14amMar '11
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
Yes in practice this simply could not work but it does highlight a real problem even if it's with "reactionary politics" as Mr. Conatser states. However I do not see any reason why something along the lines of Mr. Whalen's proposal of sunsetting would not work and yet achieve much the same beneficial effect.
Jun '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
There is also the issue of how many regulations are on the books but not enforced due to the fact that they may be obsolete and/or unenforceable. The stupidity of constantly adding regulations is that as society changes none of the old regulations/laws ever come off the books.
Dec '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
Other good points made to the side, 1991 is a terrible year to pick, as it would leave in place the awful regulations promulgated under Bush the Paternalistic. Under Bush 41, the truly ridiculous enforcement of wetlands regulations began. Under Bush, the Coast Guard began regularly boarding the vessels of law-abiding recreational boaters, weapons drawn, and treating ordinary citizens as criminals until they proved their innocence.
1988 strikes me as a better hypothetical date.
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
James Delingpole: They talk the talk but can they walk the walk? David Cameron's administration promised something similarly appetizing: no new government legislation to be passed unless another piece of government legislation had first been scrapped.
Did it happen?
Er, this is politicians we're talking about. · Sep 29 at 10:06am
True, but I like the mischievousness of the proposal. Of course there's something arbitrary about it, but what I hate about every new government regulation is that its supporters always suggest that before Proposed Rule 13,985.6 Sec. iv, Paragraph 76, there was chaos and misery throughout the land.
Sep '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
As to social program spending, how about starting with a repeal of all social programs begun after 1965? We would still be busy with Social Security, Welfare, and Medicare.
Dec '10
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
Farther yet.
1930 is a nice round number, and has the added benefit of catching every regulation related to the 1934 NFA.
In a related note, it really chaps my ass when people make the (rather large) leap in logic that if something isn't regulated in every last detail by the federal government, it is inherently more dangerous.
The assumptions of lazy thinkers are sinking us faster than you and I can bail.
Jan '11
Re: Roll it Back to 1991
Ah, 1991 - I've lived through two palindromic years (no Palin jokes!)
An AM radio in my office, and no computer. What was life really like back then? Hard to imagine, even for me