Overview
Title
Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
Agencies
ELI5 AI
In this document, the President has decided that for every new rule made, ten old rules must be removed to try to help the economy grow. Some important rules, like those about safety or the military, can stay.
Summary AI
The Executive Order 14192 is an effort by the U.S. President to reduce the number of federal regulations, aiming to stimulate economic growth. For every new regulation introduced, at least 10 existing regulations must be removed, with the goal of ensuring the total cost of regulations is reduced each year. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is tasked with overseeing and guiding this process, and exceptions can be made for regulations related to national security, military, or very low-cost areas. The order also stipulates that regulations must be accounted for in the regulatory plans and agendas presented during the presidential budget process.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
This executive order from the President, titled "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," is set to scale back the number of federal regulations in order to boost economic growth and efficiency. The document mandates that for each new regulation introduced, at least 10 existing regulations must be removed. This ambitious "ten-for-one" rule aims to ensure a decrease in the overall cost of regulations each year. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is tasked with overseeing this process, and exceptions can occur for regulations that pertain to national security or impose minimal costs.
General Summary
The executive order seeks to curb what is perceived as an overabundance of complicated federal regulations. These regulations reportedly increase costs and hinder innovations and growth both domestically and globally. By requiring a reduction of existing regulations for every new one introduced, the administration intends to streamline regulatory processes to foster economic prosperity and national security. The directive also includes provisions for fiscal accountability, with a stipulation that the total cost of new regulations each year must be less than zero, after accounting for any repealed regulations.
Significant Issues or Concerns
The approach of removing 10 regulations for every new one could inadvertently lead to the repeal of beneficial regulations necessary for public safety or environmental protection. This one-size-fits-all mandate might not account for the nuanced needs across different sectors, risking the elimination of important safeguards.
Additionally, the requirement for the incremental cost of new regulations to be significantly less than zero could impede the introduction of necessary updates or improvements to existing laws, particularly in areas where upfront costs are essential to public welfare, such as health and safety measures.
There could also be challenges in the practical execution of this order. The processes for determining which regulations are considered "offsetting" and the definition of "incremental costs" are complex and may lead to inconsistencies among different agencies. Such ambiguities may result in uneven application and enforcement of the order across federal departments.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, this executive order could mean fewer regulatory hoops, potentially lowering costs for businesses, which might translate into lower prices for consumers. However, the downside could be a decrease in certain protections and standards, as important regulations might be repealed without thorough consideration.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Businesses: Companies, particularly small and medium-sized ones, might benefit from reduced compliance costs. However, larger corporations with more complex operations might end up incurring costs to adapt to the rapid regulatory changes.
Regulatory Agencies: These agencies will face the challenge of meeting the "ten-for-one" mandate without compromising on necessary regulations. Ensuring compliance while honoring the order's stipulations could place a significant administrative burden on them.
Environmental and Public Safety Advocates: These groups may express concerns that valuable regulations protecting the environment or public health might be scrapped in the name of deregulation, leading to potential long-term risks.
In conclusion, while this executive order has the potential to stimulate economic growth by reducing regulatory burdens, it comes with considerable challenges and risks. A nuanced approach and careful oversight will be necessary to ensure that deregulation doesn't come at the expense of essential protections and standards.
Issues
• The requirement to eliminate 10 existing regulations for each new regulation, as stated in Section 1, may lead to the removal of necessary or beneficial regulations, potentially ignoring nuanced differences in regulatory needs across sectors.
• The directive in Section 3(b) for the total incremental cost of new regulations to be significantly less than zero could hinder necessary regulatory updates, particularly in areas where costs might be necessary for public welfare improvements.
• The process for determining 'offsetting regulations' and 'incremental costs' in Sections 3(c) and 4(a) is described, but may lack clarity in execution, potentially leading to inconsistent application across different agencies.
• The document uses technical language that could be challenging for stakeholders without legal or regulatory expertise to fully comprehend the implications, as seen in Sections detailing policy implementation and fiscal measures.
• The language in Section 5(c) allowing exemptions for regulations with 'minimal costs or burdens' is subjective and could lead to arbitrary exempting decisions without clear criteria or oversight.
• Revoking OMB Circular No. A-4 and reinstating the prior version as described in Section 6(b) is done without clear justification, which may lead to confusion or disruption in regulatory analysis practices.
• The severability clause in Section 7 ensures the order's continuation even if parts are invalidated, but it does not address the potential need for comprehensive reassessment if substantive elements are removed.