Do we really want a “nimble” federal government? Or do we want one that is slow, plodding and methodical. I suppose it depends on whom you ask.
Anyone (hopefully) on the right, and who is a friend to the Constitution, would surely say they would vastly prefer a government that operates much as does an aircraft carrier. Although much of these things are classified to some extent, it can take, for example, up to five nautical miles just to stop a carrier – much less to reverse course. In other words – far from nimble – which is exactly what the founders intended to slow the intrusive creep of government.
Those on left, almost without exception, think the exact opposite of the federal government. They would prefer a government capable of speedboat-like course corrections, a government free from the shackles of the Constitution and legislative oversight. They prefer the government, not of our founding, but what we have today, filled with autonomous agencies full of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who answer to no one.
To no one’s surprise (or at least it shouldn’t be), the ultra-leftist site ThinkProgress is aligned fully with the latter analogy, but now fears that new Republican dominance might halt the dexterity of these agencies.
Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress writes that, “House Republicans will ring in the new year with a plan to permanently cripple government.”
Oh, if that were only true. Millhiser goes on to state: “They [Republicans] want to break it so badly it can’t be fixed again.” Whatever are they complaining about?
Well, it’s the resurrection of the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act” (REINS Act),first introduced to Congress, Jan. 21, 2015. What is that, you may ask?
The REINS Act, “would require any executive branch rule or regulation with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more – designated by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a ‘major rule’ – to come before Congress for an up-or-down vote before being enacted.” If the proposed (onerous) rule or (burdensome) regulation isn’t voted on within 70 days, it is automatically rejected.
Although it may be music to our ears, this is what has ThinkProgress as inconsolable as when Bernie Sanders lost the nomination.
A hundred million may sound like a lot, but the latest estimates are that the federal regulatory burden on U.S. business and households is approximately $2 trillion per year, give or take $20 billion or so.
To prove just how damaging actual accountability may be, the column cites the Clean Air Act, noting that “The Clean Air Act, for example, requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set ‘standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines’ if the EPA determines that those emissions ’cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'”
Of course the writer would use an example of the most radical government agency in the nation, whose bureaucrats are the sole arbiters of what is a danger to “public health or welfare.”
He obviously fears that if the REINS Act actually becomes law, the EPA might no longer be able to use the Clean Water Act to fine a Wyoming man $16 million and drive him into bankruptcy for building a pond on his own property.
Nor could the law be used to mandate residents in Alaska freeze to death rather than burn wood to stay alive when temperatures dip to -30°F (at least) in the winter, because burning wood pollutes the air. Of course, when you’re dead, you are probably less concerned with breathing, but that’s not the EPA’s problem.
These are types of rules and regulations the writers at ThinkProgress believe are so crucial, the types of rules and regulations achieved only with a “nimble” government, filled with bureaucrats much smarter than we and completely devoid of accountability – able to make there own rules and, as government always does, determine winners and losers.
