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.
Mike Rounds, Earning That Senate Seat
We have a bad habit when it comes to US Senators: the guys we pay the most mind to tend to be the ones who demonstrate the best stagecraft (as I write this, Rand Paul is filibustering the Patriot Act on the Senate floor). That has its place, but there’s also a lot to be said for the guys who roll up their sleeves and do grunt work that’s vital for the country but probably won’t ever earn them a single vote. Put South Dakota freshman Mike Rounds in that latter category. As far as I’m concerned, he can have that seat as long as he wants it. From Lydia Wheeler at The Hill:
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) is planning to introduce a resolution Wednesday to create a committee to review rules enacted by federal agencies. The Regulation Sensibility Through Oversight Restoration, or RESTORE, Resolution would establish a Joint Select Committee to review new rules, hold hearings on the effects of those already in place and recommend ways to reduce regulatory overreach. The committee will also analyze whether it’s feasible for Congress to create a permanent committee to review all rules with economic impacts of $50 million or more before they are enacted.
Short answer: Yes, it’s feasible. Some may dare to say it’s obligatory.
In a call with reporters Wednesday morning, Rounds said unelected bureaucrats are enacting agency rules behind closed doors. “These bureaucrats have essentially become the fourth branch of government and a de facto regulatory body,” he said.
Yes, it’s incremental. Yes, it’s got one of those unmelodious congressional acronyms. But it’s focused on combatting a source of systemic rot, which is more than we can say about the agendas of most members of the upper chamber, freshmen or otherwise.
Hats off to Senator Rounds. Keep it up.
Published in Domestic Policy
Troy, thanks for bringing this to our attention; this is a great step for reform, I hope it is enacted.
I applaud Sen. Rounds for doing this. In theory, our democratic republic elects people to make laws; in reality, we elect people who can appoint people (or maybe make a big stink about firing them) who make our laws. The attenuated system of law-making renders elections meaningless. Imagine someone standing out on the street corner: “Congressman Jones refuses to try to fire the people who made this administrative regulation!”
That said, I think this will fail for precisely the same reason it is so needed: Congress is incapable of effectively overseeing the regulatory branch of government, because it has grown too big and self-governing for oversight.
I don’t know if it’s enough to just know we’re getting bent over by the system. We will need some removal of some regulations before we can even hope to start rebalancing the relationship between citizen and government.
I have doubts that this bill will ever get enacted into law.
RESTORE? Really? Ugh.
No doubt thought up by The Optimum Oversight Committee for Unclear Title Engineering (TOO CUTE).
Until proven wrong, I’ll continue to assume the seriousness and/or honesty of a given bill is inversely proportional to its title’s “cleverness”. Hence, I doubt anything useful will come of this.
May I be proven horribly wrong.
Whatever happens, the good Senator will have a superficially conservative legislative “accomplishment” to crow about, which is what’s most important, after all.
Me, cynical? Nah.
Yeah? What about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “PPACA.”
Well, that’s not particularly clever, so the above assumption doesn’t apply.
It instead falls within another rule that most legislation is assumed to be bunk until proven otherwise, and the more complicated the bill and more left-leaning the author(s), the stronger the assumption.
I like the idea from Rubio and others that any regulation’s economic impact must be offset by removing of regulations with an equivalent impact.
It would turn the regulators on themselves! How fun would that be?
I like the “one in, one out” rule. The Code of Federal Regulations is like all the junk in my garage and closets — more than I need or can even remember I have. I’d prefer “none in, lots out” but I’ll start modestly at just holding the number at the moment.