Trump - Eliminate 2 Existing Regs for Every New Reg

Status
Not open for further replies.
falconkidding said:
Oh gosh....Narrowing a complex issue down to a feel good soundbite.

Regulations aren't a simple matter of more=bad, and regulations by necessity will always expand especially with the faa.
Click to expand...

Also, as far as I got (this post) has been no mention that the NEW rule will have to be cost offset to be the same or less costly than the two rules that will have to go.

I'm thinking as you about the nonsense of 1 for 2, but also the COST (and in many cases impossibility) of calculating the "cost" of the two that get eliminated, and the expected cost of the new rule. Ironically I think making that determination would cost more than all three rules in many cases.

So I guess "fight club" rules, if you add one more, everyone can start talking about fight club!
 
Trump isn't breaking new ground here. The UK has experience with the "one in two out" rule, and overall it seems to have worked well. I guess we'll see. The lessons learned from their experience appear to be to focus on the net cost, not just the gross numbers, and include the cost of complying with the existing stock of regs in the calculation.

Trump's rule only includes new regs. It's a start.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
And what, exactly, is the difference?
Click to expand...
"New" as in never existed before regulation that adds a burden.
"Revised" as in modified from an existing regulation that is clarified or relaxed, with the same or less burden.

Clear enough?
 
Ravioli said:
Or maybe 10 commandments? Now we can have Politics AND Religion in a single thread.

Oh the humanity.
Click to expand...
Not quite done; now we need to add a side discussion on why a pro right seater who is told to not touch a damned thing unless told to needs to have 1500 hours and an ATP.
 
Half Fast said:
And that is effective in many business environments. Heck, I've done it myself.

How well it will work in a gov't bureaucracy remains to be seen.

Much of what Trump is doing, and how he's doing it, looks quite familiar to those of us who've been in corporations all our lives. To the federal agencies and to the media, it's like watching an alien from Alpha Centauri. Their minds seem blown by dramatic change, but "change" is what the electorate chose.
Click to expand...
Egg-zactly.
 
Of course, without some sort of oversight or comment period, you'll get administrative estimates for cost of compliance like the FAA's estimate of $85 per aircraft for complying with the Navworx removal AD. So who's to say there will be any reflection of reality. But at least it will get cost of compliance into the conversation.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Of course, without some sort of oversight or comment period, you'll get administrative estimates for cost of compliance like the FAA's estimate of $85 per aircraft for complying with the Navworx removal AD. So who's to say there will be any reflection of reality. But at least it will get cost of compliance into the conversation.
Click to expand...
The cost estimates are required to be done by OMB.
 
paflyer said:
"New" as in never existed before regulation that adds a burden.
"Revised" as in modified from an existing regulation that is clarified or relaxed, with the same or less burden.

Clear enough?
Click to expand...
No. Not even close.

Leaving aside that burdens and newness have absolutely no correlation, every regulation, new, revised or deleted, is a burden for someone, somewhere.

Care to try again?
 
MAKG1 said:
No. Not even close.

Leaving aside that burdens and newness have absolutely no correlation, every regulation, new, revised or deleted, is a burden for someone, somewhere.

Care to try again?
Click to expand...
Bite me, Pooh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top