Donald Trump

The Federal Regulatory State Is Out of Control. Here's One Way Congress Can Get Power Back

Sen. Rand Paul: "An important first step toward increasing accountability, oversight, and transparency in Washington."


There were more than 90,000 pages added the Federal Register, that behemoth of a book that annually tracks the growth of the federal leviathan, during 2016, making last year's list of federal rules and regulations a full 10,000 pages longer than the previous record.

Including last year's record-breaker, 13 of the 15 longest registers in American history have been authored by the past two presidential administrations (Barack Obama owns seven of the top eight, with George W. Bush filling in most of the rest), according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market D.C. think tank that diligently tracks the pages of the registry each year.

If Donald Trump's incoming administration aims to reverse that worrying trend—something the president-elect has claimed to want to do—then it could use a helping hand from Congress. The growth of the regulatory state is inextricably linked to the expansion of the executive branch's powers in recent decades, but those powers have expanded in part because congress has willingly winnowed its own authority.

"Congress has been all too happy to delegate away those powers to executive branch agencies," says Ryan Young, a fellow at CEI. "Suppose a regulation passes that is unpopular or backfires or is burdensome, then congressmen, who do have to face re-election every couple of years, can say 'don't blame me, blame the EPA or the FCC' or whichever agency is responsible."

Last year, for example, Congress passed 211 bills while federal regulatory agencies approved 3,852 regulations, Young says.

To stop Congress from passing the buck like that, Young says federal lawmakers should pass something called the REINS Act—the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act.

The REINS Act would require every new regulation that costs more than $100 million to be approved by Congress. As it is now, agencies can pass those rules unilaterally. Such major rules only account for about 3 percent of annual regulations, but they are the ones that cause the most headaches for individuals and businesses.

"What the REINS Act would do is add a little bit of democratic accountability to the regulation process," Young told me during this week's episode of American Radio Journal.

Congress would also be required to review all existing regulations that surpass that $100 million threshold. Right now, there's no clear accounting of how many such rules exist, so assessing the landscape would be a necessary step before reforms could be enacted.

The fly in the ointment, of course, is that for congress to reassert its authority it first has to want to reassert its authority. It's not clear that a majority of its members do, probably for the political reason that Young outlined.

Still, the REINS Act did pass the House on four occasions during the Obama administration. Lack of support in the Senate and the threat of a presidential veto kept it from ever reaching Obama's desk.

That might change under President Trump, who has made no secret of his desire to slash federal regulations. He's promised to rescind two federal rules for every one new regulation added to the books.

"REINS is an important first step toward increasing accountability, oversight, and transparency in Washington, and it's one of the best ways President-elect Trump and the new Republican Congress can show we're responding to the American people's demand for change," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) in a statement earlier this month when he co-sponsored the Senate version of the REINS Act along with 25 of his colleagues.

Listen to my whole interview with Young here.

NEXT: UPDATED! Will Obama Pardon Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning? No, but Lying Admin Folks Will go Scot-Free

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Reins act would be the biggest and most important restriction on government power since the BOR. You can’t overstate how big of a shift it would represent. It would make it make it virtually impossible to pass new regulations. Meanwhile, the process of repealing regulation, while remaining difficult, would be unchanged. The Reins act would amount to a reverse ratchet on federal regulations, which each new administration repealing various regulations it didn’t like and being unable to undo and implement ones it did. The process for once would only go the right way instead of forever tightening federal control.

    1. Forgive me if I am skeptical that this will pass the Senate. If it does I expect it will be because they amend it in some what to neuter it.

      1. I have no idea if it will pass. I am just saying if it does, it would be to quote our President Elect HUGEE!!

        1. I would predict that every new regulation would suddenly have just slightly less than 100 million in effect and thereby continue along, just like before, only with new bogus numbers attached. It will take more than REINS to slay the beast.

          1. Wouldn’t work. That determination would be challenged in court and unless you could make some reasonable justification for why you believe that, you would lose.

            1. Challenged by whom? The courts have been pretty happy finding that even Congress critters lack the relevant standing.

              It’s also dog-puke-easy to parcel out regulations in chunks which individually are below the $100M cutoff but collectively far beyond it.

              Trying to outwit bureaucrats is like mud wrestling a pig. Their *lives* are the bureaucracy. Their promotions and bragging rights depend on the bureaucracy. No mere well-intentioned law is going to get in their way.

              The ONLY way to cut back on regulations is to sunset the damned things and require Congress to repass them individually. The ONLY way to prevent Congress from combining renewals into an omnibus renewal act is to have some drawback to combined laws …. such as saying that if any part of a law is found defective, the entire law is voided, thus encouraging laws to be as small, simple, and clear as possible.

              1. Parceling them out in less-than-$100M chunks is what would concern me, too. However, it could lead to interesting litig’n over which chunk was responsible for which cost. Sometimes it’s only the interplay of 2 or more provisions that’s costly.

              2. It’s also dog-puke-easy to parcel out regulations in chunks which individually are below the $100M cutoff but collectively far beyond it.


                An even better way to cut back on regulations is to pass laws which strictly limit what an agency can do, ie “CDC shall only concern itself with communicable diseases caused by fungi, bacteria, virii or prions.”

    2. Meanwhile, the process of repealing regulation, while remaining difficult, would be unchanged.

      John, I’m curious – why is repealing regulation hard? Amending regulation is dead easy, after all – the agency makes it so, sometimes after a pro forma notice-and-comment period. Why can’t the agency just make a repeal so, the same way? Or, reduce the regulation to a pro forma recitation of the statute itself or some similar de minimis regulation, via agency amendment?

      1. Repealling is easy, if Congress wants to do it. What is hard is having the agency do it. There is an entire process that goes into writing a regulation. You have to justify why it is necessary and why whatever you are doing makes sense and is economically efficient. Then there is a public comment period on all of that and the agency has to respond to all of the comments. At the end of this the agency has to make a determination that the regulation is a proper interpretation of the law, will create more value in terms of safety or health or whatever than the economic burden it imposes and is therefore the proper course of action.

        You can’t undo all of those findings by fiat. You have to go back and explain why you were wrong and why the regulation is not really beneficial or not really within the scope of your authority given by the statute or some other reason justifying why you are repealing it. If you don’t do that, the activist groups sue and a judge orders you to do so.

        You can always stop enforcing a regulation. But to take it off the books effectively requires you to reverse the process that you went through writing it. You can’t just say “this no longer applies”.

        1. So, there’s a lot of paperwork. But, other than putting together new findings (and lets face it, the original regs were basically by fiat with a lot of armwaving), its within the agency’s authority.

          Who really has standing to challenge the agency’s findings anyway? Because there sure are a crapload of BS in justifications for the regs that always goes unchallenged, at least in court. The only challenges I have seen are whether the regs exceed statutory authority, and rarely to never is the agency’s justification challenged, and not once do I recall seeing regs struck down because the armwaving was insufficient. IOW, I’m not sure how good the new findings really need to be.

          1. Who really has standing to challenge the agency’s findings anyway?

            Anyone effected by the regulation. And that includes anyone who can claim a stake in its result. For example, one of the first cases I worked on back in the day had to do with Coast Guard regulations involving shipping and Wright Whales. The environmental groups who were suing claimed and got standing based on the fact that their members liked to go out and observe Wright Whales.

            So standing is easy in most cases.

            1. “The environmental groups who were suing claimed and got standing based on the fact that their members liked to go out and observe Wright Whales.”

              Horrible. Those environmental fascists who like to watch whales. We should just turn the environment over to the Once-ler and be done with it.

            2. The environmental groups who were suing claimed and got standing based on the fact that their members liked to go out and observe Wright Whales.

              The fact that taxpayer standing isn’t a thing boggles my mind when I hear stories like this.

            3. Hmm. Not my area, so I defer. It seems incredible to me that its harder to repeal a regulation than an actual statute, though.

              1. If you repeal the statute which enables the regulation of the thing, then the regulation goes away.

            4. Standing is NOT easy for finding laws or regulations defective. The courts have even ruled against the legislators themselves sometimes, saying they who voted in a law don’t have standing to challenge its implementation.

              Courts don’t have any problem with standing for a lot of mickey mouse lawsuits, but those are all concerned with the finicky details of the laws and regs. The courts do everything possible to stay out of the political arena, which to them includes finding laws and regs unconstitutional.

            5. If & when DEA tries to move pot out of schedule 1, there are bound to be interest groups fighting it administratively; don’t know if they’ll consider it worthwhile taking to an article 3 court, but wouldn’t surprise me if they get a case. What DEA will have to say is, we were wrong to read the requirements for scheduling on an “or”, instead of “and” or “mostly”, basis, or that they have new evidence on all 3 of pot’s safety, medical use, and abuse potential.

          2. And no it is not impossible. But it is not quick or that easy either. And remember, there are a ton of Progressive judges out there who will happily make findings of fact that while absurd will make life very hard for the government.

            1. How about if regulation stays on books but Congress refuses to expropriate money to enforce it? Can judges force Congress to fund something (that is, add an expense to the Federal Budget)?

          3. The trouble is, the findings justifying the original regs are on the record. That’s a heck of a presumption in their favor that can be brought up in court. See the passive restraints (USDOT) issue.

        2. Remember how the Reagan DOT tried to repeal their air bag/passive restraint requirement? They did it administratively, but were taken to court, where the requirement was reinstated on the basis that the repeal was arbitrary & capricious in view of what DOT had previously (under Carter) on the record to justify the reg to begin w. So we were stuck w both the state must-wear-belts laws that were given as the justif’n for repeal of the passive restraints reg, and the passive restraints.

    3. And take us back to the savage barbarism of the 1990’s? FUGEDABOUDIT.

    4. We need a new executive level department … the Department of Deregulation. Their job would be to look for any regulations that can be cut and their budget would be 5% of whatever government savings they find and maybe even some percentage of private costs to boot. Wouldn’t that build a fire under them? The more they get rid of the more they are able to get rid of.

      Just like regulatory agencies and Congress seem to get rated just on the basis of how much regulation and legislation they pass, the Deregulatory Agency would get rated based on how much they can get rid of. Let’s make DC a Harsh Mistress.

      And/or there’s always the perennial sunset provision. Any legislation or regulation automatically expires after __ years unless explicitly re-enacted. Any studies that were used to justify the initial action have to be re-done to make sure that what they are doing is still “useful” and “cost effected.”

  2. One way Congress can get power back? Whut? Why does the Federal bureaucracy have so much power in the first place? Jebus. Congress handed it to them so they could avoid responsibility by having an army of nameless, faceless unaccountable do the dirty work of putting a boot on the necks of the peasants.

    When I think about the reasons why so many have been infected with TDS the first ones that come to mind are:

    He won’t play along with the press in creating a narrative.

    He said “I am going to drain the swamp” and “the wheels are about to come off of the gravy train”

    He said ” We will only have one new regulation for every two we cut”

    He said “We are going to cut taxes for everyone.” and “You should be able to do your taxes on a postcard” (I think I remember that right)

    Here’s how congress can get power back. *Begins laughing*

    1. Wasn’t Cruz the “taxes on a postcard” candidate? Or did Trump adopt that too?

      1. It is entirely possible that I misremember that in some way.

      2. The “taxes on a postcard” thing always makes me laugh.

        Sure they could have a form that says Income minus Expenses = Taxable Income times rate equals Tax.

        and 50,000 pages of regs to define Income and Expenses.

        1. No “minus expenses” other than netting, say, broker’s fee to sell your stock.

          1. Businesses file tax returns, too.

        2. I’m not sure of the specifics of Cruz’ proposal, but I have seen proposals which limited both the instructions and supporting tables to a specific number of pages. You also have to specify page size, margins and acceptable typeface and type size to avoid shenanigans.

      3. Carly Fiorina and Gary Johnson were tax on a postcard promoters. One of the problems I see is that there’s no master list of all gov expenditures that would reveal where to make cuts in government. That list should be made public. I think if you put Carly Fiorina or some Teaparty congresspeople in charge of a gov audit, they’d quickly put that list together. How can you even begin to make tax policy if you don’t have a clear list of where the money is going? SS is probably the only thing that shouldn’t be cut because that’s money taken out of Americans’ paychecks and belongs to us. The rest of the expenditures, including unnecessary agencies are open to scrutiny and surgical whittling or removal altogether if they are a waste of tax dollars. If an agency is closed, it would make sense that any regulation that agency brought about be automatically abolished as well. Some agencies should probably be combined as they seem to be a duplication of efforts. Why have Homeland Security when we already have the Coast Guard, the Army, Navy and Air Forces? Why have the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, NSA and more whose names I don’t even know along with the FBI? This seems to be a duplication of effort, wasteful of tax money and ripe for abuse by lack of oversight. Edward Snowden clearly demonstrated that.

  3. The mystery has finally been solved: global warming is caused by the size of the federal register! They correlate perfectlyl!

    1. Actually one of those is not like the other in that it exists.

  4. There were more than 90,000 pages added the Federal Register…making last year’s list of federal rules and regulations a full 10,000 pages longer…

    The table accompanying the article appears to list total page counts.

    Please clarify.

    1. IIRC the Federal Regulations tracks new and proposed regulations, not all rules ever. I could be wrong though, and if that’s the case I’d appreciate anyone who has the correct info.

    2. There is the Federal Register, where agency notices and new regulations (including very long, in some cases, comment sections that are not actually/technically part of the regulation), and the Code of Federal Regulations, where the actual regulations are published.

      I think the CFR page count may be the better metric.

      1. It’s definitely the better metric of the 2. Still not that good a measure of the burden of regs, though.

  5. From the NYTimes on reader submitted questions for Trump’s choice for EPA director…

    “If the scientific consensus on climate change proves correct and the changes in the Earth’s weather cause widespread devastation, loss of life and property and great economic damage, who should be held responsible for staying the actions that might have prevented or ameliorated these outcomes?”

    That’s easy, dumbass. Obama.

    1. Some day the great Gaia monster will appear and cleanse the earth of its sinful ways.

      Preach it retard. Preach it.

      1. Nah… that’s a Ron Baileyism. He thinks the world’s environmental problems are going to be solved by FutureTech like putting iron fillings in the Pacific Ocean or deploying a heat shield in outer space. I think it’s going to be solved by Future Tech like windmills, solar arrays, caulking your windows, driving more efficient cars, and– yes– maybe a little more nuclear power.

        1. I think it’s going to be solved by Future Tech like windmills, solar arrays, caulking your windows, driving more efficient cars,

          Which means you are an idiot who knows nothing about economics or energy production.

          1. AS doesn’t know anything about Bailey either.

          2. Hey John,

            Without looking it up, define enthalpy for me and describe where it is in the Gibbs Free Energy Equation.

            1. shorter AM: “economics and energy production = thermodynamics”

            2. “The” gibbs free energy equation? Presumably you mean the definition of gibbs free energy (can you explain what its significance is without looking it up?). As to “where” it is I guess you could say the opposite side, but that’s a very unscientific question.

              Now, without looking them up please explain how the effect of increasing co2 leads to increased warming given that it overlaps the same olwr band as water vapor (it can be done but I sincerely doubt you can do it). Also, explain how a reduced thermal gradient from the equator to the poles will result in more extreme weather events. I’m dying to hear your heat transfer treatise that can reconcile those two conflicting points.

              1. Only some of the CO? frequency peaks overlap with the H?O ones, not all of them.

                Now as to the extreme weather? I’d like to see how someone could try to justify that claim since it’s the energy difference that drives weather systems.

                1. The ones that matter overlap.

    2. My answer would be, “That question makes as much sense as asking ‘If Godzilla climbs out of Tokyo Bay and devaststes Japan, who will take responsibility for the damage?’.” The entire exercise is based on the premise that a deranged fantasy is true. There is no ‘consensus’, beyond what has been manufactured by political forces. If there were, it still would not mean anything without provable theory, which is in short supply. The models used to predict the dire consequences of unchecked climate change,demonstrably cannot ‘predict’ the current state of climate from data of five years past, so why should we take them any more,seriously than we do the archtypical nut in the street witha ‘The End Is Coming’ sign? The groups touting man made climate change have been caught fiddling their data so often it is no longer news. And, furthermore, YOU know all this, which makes your original question an unsubtle act of,propaganda.”

      1. The key phrase there is “dire consequences.” They’ve taken the basic science of energy conversion from electromagnetic to kinetic and then piled this whole construct of disaster on top of it. The fact that there is consensus on the basic science has nothing to do with their multiplier claims for disaster arising from it.


    Miss Venezuela. Holy cow.

      1. From her Wikipedia entry

        Habach is a dental student and was raised in a Syrian and Italian family along with two brothers in the village of El Tocuyo. Her father, Antonios, was born in the city of Tartus, Syria and her maternal family came from Fontanarosa and Agrigento, Italy during World War II.[1] Habach speaks four languages, Spanish, English, Arabic and Italian.

        She is smart as well.

        1. She’s a dental hygienist that speaks her parents’ languages.

          Throughout Latin America, pretty much all science and math classes are taught in English past the eighth grade.

          She’s hot and she speaks the languages of her parents.

          You’re thinking with your dick.

          1. She is hot and speaks the languages of her parents. That requires a fair amount of intelligence. Four languages is still four languages. And since when are dental hygienists stupid?

            1. She’s certainly qualified to be my assistant.

        2. Habach is a dental student and was raised in a Syrian

          SHE’S A REFUGEE!

          1. If you want to only admit female refugees and vet them entirely based on how hot they are, you have my vote.

          2. FWIW, if it were possible to track hotness in the world, outside of Scandinavia and eastern Europe, I think we’d find that it statistically correlates to something like the Lebanese diaspora. Some of the hottest chicks in Latin America (Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico) are ethnically from Lebanon/Syria.

            A fair amount of Russians having descended from Scandinavians and Vikings probably probably didn’t hurt their gene pool on that count either. I’m guessing the Viking slave trade must have helped with that. You raid the coasts of Britain, Ireland, the Mediterranean, and eastern Europe for slaves over a period of centuries, and you’re going to keep the best of the best for yourself, right?

            I still say we should offer all single Scandinavian women under 30 refugees status, the poor dears. Just the women, not the men. Why, I hear that Sweden is now the rape capital of the world!

            Surely, we can find some way to let them in–on an expedited basis. Also, single women from Poland, Ukraine, Serbia, . . .

        3. This is where the term “hybrid vigor” comes from.

    1. It’s just not going to be the same without Donald Trump trying to break into the female bathroom. Hilariously, the citizens of that country–including evangelical Christians, who aren’t completely full of shit (wink, wink)– decided to promote him by making him responsible for running the country instead of a beauty pageant. [Popping popcorn] I can’t wait to see what happens.

    2. Miss Venezuela.

      I was expecting an emaciated waif sitting on a dirty sidewalk holding out a tin cup.

    3. Miss Russia looks sassy. She can interrogate me any time.

    4. Wait, where’s Lena Dunham?

  7. REINS Act. Do we have to shoehorn some sort of shitty acronym into EVERY DAMN PIECE OF LEGISLATION?

    1. There wasn’t a pretty, dead blonde girl handy for this one.


    The U.S. Government Should Buy Gilead For $156 Billion To Save Money On Hepatitis C

    1. Seems like your classic make-or-buy decision.

  9. The REINS Act would require every new regulation that costs more than $100 million to be approved by Congress.

    That threshold is far too high, but I’d be happy with this as a starting point. Also, I’m sure there will be jiggery pokery by the agencies on cost estimates. Does cost include only the direct cost (to business) of regulatory compliance or does this include the cost to the taxpayers in bureaucrat salaries, etc?

    A more comprehensive act would include sanctions on government for underestimating costs. Such sanctions would be in the form of mandatory agency budget cuts for the next FY (no raising the agency’s budget to cover the sanctions).

    1. I wonder if, under the bill, the cost is estimated by the agency issuing the regulation or a third party.

      1. LOL. I’m assuming that the agencies do the estimates themselves.

        1. Likely. They are supposed to do them now, but their “estimates” are laughably low.

        2. “The aforementioned regulation will have an impact of $99,999,999.99”

  10. “The fly in the ointment, of course, is that for congress to reassert its authority it first has to want to reassert its authority.”

    That’s the problem with a balanced budget amendment, too.

    Why would Congress want to put themselves in a situation where they have to make trough choices about spending cuts (or tax increases) when they could just keep raising the debt ceiling instead?

    Someday, inflation will reel it’s ugly head again, but it’s rare that Congress puts itself in a position to make tough choices–unless there’s no other choice.

    Same with regulation, too. Maybe the reason Congress doesn’t do anything about overregulation is because it doesn’t want to do anything about overregulation–or at least they haven’t in the past. Watching Ryan and McConnell fold ObamaCare into the budget resolution process is promising, though. The other explanation is that Congress hasn’t done anything about overregulation for the past eight years because President Obama wouldn’t sign a deregulation bill.

    I’m so glad that SOB is gone.

    1. where they have to make trough choices

      Hilarious, and I presume unintentional typo. Since politicians “feed from the public trough.”

      1. The point is that if there were a balanced budget amendment–in that situation–they’d have to make tough choices about what to cut (or which taxes to raise). If you just raise the debt ceiling, you don’t have to make those tough choices and cut somebody’s support out from under you.

        But with a balanced budget amendment, they couldn’t raise the debt ceiling. They’d have to cut something. Avoiding having to cut something is what raising the debt ceiling and taking on more debt is all about. The question is, “Why would they want to put themselves in a situation where there was no easy way out?”.

        The answer is that a balanced budget amendment needs to come from the states rather than the federal government.

        The states can’t really address federal regulation, however. Balanced budget amendments are a general problem with a specific solution. Federal regulation isn’t like that. There isn’t an all encompassing specific solution to that. It’s something Congress has to address one bill at a time. I suppose the states could address the commerce clause with a constitutional amendment, but I don’t really see a broad consensus for that.

        1. And people say *I* ruin jokes…

  11. As nice as this sounds aren’t Senate Democrats for sure just going to filibuster it to death?

    1. The filibuster is an antiquated, obstructionist, and racist custom invented by dead white men. The Democrats said so themselves. Surely this won’t be an issue then?

      1. I thought it was gone? Or is that only for confirmations?

        It will be fun to hear Democrats try to argue against this without saying FYTW.

        1. It’s gone only for cabinet confirmation votes, not for anything else. McConnell has already said they won’t be changing the rules any further despite having the presidency now.

          1. I think its gone for Cabinet confirmations AND all federal judicial appointment below SCOTUS.

  12. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

  13. Yet another example of Reason’s crap coverage of the election (which I hope they have realized and are making changes).

    There’s absolutely no reason this couldn’t have been published during the campaign, but a candidate who would likely sign the REINS Act and has promised repeatedly to take a machete to the Federal Register apparently wasn’t something libertarians were interested in.

    *rant OFF

    1. We’ve been seeing a lot less of certain writers lately.

      1. I’m hoping that the failure of their fundraising campaign delivered the message. That’s why I didn’t give this year, for the first time in quite awhile.

        1. Same here.

    2. I might have mentioned that a time or two during the campaign. Why just yesterday my assertion that killing off a lot of regulation would create an environment where civil liberties could be more freely exercised was called laughable.

  14. Poll: Young Americans fear they will be worse off post-Trump

    NEW YORK (AP) ? As Donald Trump approaches his inauguration, young Americans have a deeply pessimistic view about his incoming administration, with young blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans particularly concerned about what’s to come in the next four years.

    So… even more of them will live at home for even longer?

    1. That’s according to a new GenForward poll . . . GenForward is a survey of adults age 18 to 30 by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The first-of-its-kind poll pays special attention to the voices of young adults of color, highlighting how race and ethnicity shape the opinions of a new generation.

      Well, only about, what, 40% of voters in that age cohort voted for Trump. But GenForward sure smells like a proggy front, so I’ve got a big old chunk of Fake News salt with this story’s name on it. . . .

      1. If they use the phrase “of color”, they are a proggy front.

    2. Young Americans lean left after exposure to 13 years of public school education. Film at 11.


  15. Having had to pore through parts of the Federal Register for job related reasons, i can say from experience that the fucker needs to be repealed by the pound, not by the regulation.

  16. I’m going out on my favorite limb, and say none of the people (on either end of the political spectrum) boo hoo hooing about rancorous obstructionist partisanship have any notion of how much the ever-increasing sweep and reach of government intrusion into everyone’s personal life has contributed to that.

    1. That’s true. It is harder for a women to get an abortion these days. Is that because of rancorous obstructionist partisanship or something else?

      1. If it really bugs you that much, then perhaps you and the women marching on DC can make donations to PP. I’m not sure why I should have to open my wallet because someone decided to have a baby and then changed their mind after the fact.

      2. It is harder for a women to get an abortion these days.

        Women in rural communities, probably. That has much more to do with the inceasing refusal of doctors to perform them than it does to any of the laws trying to restrict them.

        Still doesn’t seem to hard, though, seeing as 19% of pregnancies were aborted in 2014.…..ted-states

      3. Harder than when?

  17. The first-of-its-kind poll pays special attention to the voices of young adults of color, highlighting how race and ethnicity shape the opinions of a new generation.

    Sounds like this “poll” is a wholly owned subsidiary of Organizing for Action, formerly known as Organizing for America, formerly known as “Obama for President”.

  18. When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied.

  19. Almost 92,000 pages of new regulations in one year? Thanks a whole lot, Block Yomomma! That’s more than 250 new pages a day, or more than 10 per hour.

    Think about that a moment: 10 new pages of regulations added literally every single hour of every single day for an entire year. It seems like it shouldn’t even be humanly possible.

    1. Whoops, I misunderstood, it was only 10,000 new pages. That’s still a lot though!

  20. Can someone suggest repealing everything? Then we can see what the bureaucrats and progs are really concerned about.

    1. I would have loved to see President Paul doing a live video feed of a “fireside chat”, where he sits by the fireside, a stack of every EO ever written, takes one from the pile, reads the exec summary aloud, and then tosses it in the fire.

  21. It is harder for a women to get an abortion these days.


    Game, set and match.

  22. Eh, it’s a start. But,
    1) If there is a threshold, the CBO should make the assessment about cost; the agency has an obvious conflict of interest.
    2) The threshold should be much lower, or non-existent. Otherwise, there is an incentive to just split up regs into smaller pieces to fit them under. And while hitting the top few % of really expensive regs is important economically, socially and morally the sheer number of regulations is a burden and ensures that most people really have no idea what the law is and cannot feasibly choose to obey it, which is no way to run a free society.
    3) Regulatory agencies should be required to go through the court system to receive any penalties or injunctions. They haven’t just usurped legislative authority.
    4) It should be a constitutional amendment. This isn’t some minor issue of effective government, it is a usurpation by the most dangerous branch of the powers of the other two branches, and a severe imbalance in our system of government.

  23. before I saw the check saying $8075 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualie receiving money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this less than 14 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Subaru Impreza .

  24. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

  25. I Leave my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…


  26. before I saw the check saying $8075 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualie receiving money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this less than 14 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Subaru Impreza .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.