Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Crises, and the Wasting Thereof
First, I will admit that I have, perhaps, not been paying as much attention to the coronavirus (or as I like to call it, the ‘Rona) as maybe I should. But crass as it may be, it also seems that there are opportunities here.
I’ve been thinking about the quote by Rahm Emanuel, “never let a crisis go to waste.” When it came out, it was much maligned by conservatives, and rightly so, for many reasons, foremost of which, as seen most recently with Nancy Pelosi, is that it isn’t a great look to be seen to attempt to advance political goals when in the midst of said crisis.
However, it also seems to me that conservatives are, as is often the case, missing a wider point here. I’ve read several articles about how FDA/CDC regulations are making it more difficult to bring coronavirus test kits to market or otherwise treat the disease. Similarly, people who normally claim that President Trump is too authoritarian are arguing that he should be ordering nationwide shelter-in-places when every state has a different situation (and the governors should be better placed to make that call than the President anyway).
In other words, we’re letting this crisis go to waste when we don’t argue that if we can cut regulations now, surely they matter less when there’s not an emergency, that letting local authorities make the decisions is better than letting the federal government do it, and that the private sector might be better placed than government at any level to help solve the problem. And I’m also aware that this is preaching to the choir.
But I will ask that now, and in the future, please don’t let a crisis go to waste.
Published in General
Clavius,
I don’t follow your logic.
This data–they’re eliminating seven for every one–gives no confirming or falsifying information regarding my speculative answer to the validated question that I have in mind (which I’ve not stated yet). This data doesn’t help answer the undefined question either; no data does.
Regarding the elimination of “lots of regulations” I asked, “which regulations?” The same question applies to your new data, only amplified. “Which seven“, rather than “which two“?
Let’s remember just what a federal regulation is. In the US, when the Legislative Branch passes a law, that law can’t be enforced until the Executive Branch writes the necessary regulations authorized by it. Properly written regulations are essential for the laws to be applied in the same way to every citizen, and for the citizens affected by the law to know whether or not they are breaking the law. Eliminating a properly written regulation is a bad thing. That’s why the question is not “how many regulations were eliminated?” but “which regulations were eliminated?”
Spoiler alert – they won’t.
It’s like people comparing the number of executive orders that an administration puts out. It’s not the number that matters, it’s the content.
Mark, I start from the assumption that many regulations, perhaps a majority, are not needed and counterproductive no matter how well they are written. You may disagree with that assumption. If many or most regulations are bad, you improve things by eliminating them at random.
While approaching it from your perspective is a better approach, I think we have killed some really bad ones (e.g., Waters of the US) even if it wasn’t an organized program.
And if I remember how this effort was kicked off, I believe it is an organized program. I just don’t know the details of its execution. If I did, I could answer your “which regulations” question.
Yup, Mexico’s immigration laws are definitely stricter than ours. However, marrying an American doesn’t automatically confer citizenship, either. I have a co-worker and friend who married a lady from Costa Rica. She had to go through a lot of red tape to get permission to live here, and more red tape to work here. To become a citizen will require a lengthy process. I think the idea that marrying an American puts you on Easy Street for becoming a citizen is an invention of Hollywood.
I concur. But perhaps the instruction part could be handled by a proven best and the interaction saved for people who would be more tutors than teachers.
But if we can’t point to specific regulations that would have made this particular economy worse had they been left in place, there is no proof.
It’s like saying, “Al Gore would have screwed up post-9/11.” It feels likely to me, unlikely to a lib, and is ultimately unknowable (but nevertheless true enough for all Right Thinking folk).