Trump’s Safe and Sane ‘Regulatory Reform’ Idea

In the abstract, all of this is eminently reasonable — and, in practice, it could produce big dividends. Few people noticed, but the Obama administration's own efforts at regulatory reform generated more than $28 billion in savings over five years. There is undoubtedly more where that came from. 

Because the White House itself lacks the capacity to scrutinize the stock of existing regulations, the Trump administration was smart to call for task forces within each agency to do that — and to require them to engage with the public to see which regulations are really causing trouble.

In addition, Trump's emphasis on cost-benefit analysis is both welcome and hugely important. Some regulations impose significant costs, and the private sector really doesn't like them. But they also create significant benefits, by helping consumers save money, preventing illness and saving lives. It would be a mistake, and it could be a tragedy, to repeal them.

True, the Trump administration isn't likely to be issuing a ton of new regulations. As of this writing, exactly zero regulations are under review at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. By contrast, the Obama administration cleared 58 regulations in its first two months, and the George W. Bush administration cleared 164.

But there's a big difference between a slowdown in the flow of new regulations and "deconstruction" of what's now on the books. Almost no one likes regulation in the abstract, but if we are speaking of food safety, highway safety, air pollution standards or protection of disabled people against discrimination, it makes no sense to take a meat ax to the administrative state.

What's needed is a scalpel, in the form of an evidence-based effort to see what really deserves to go, after close engagement with the American public. It's too soon to know what will ultimately emerge, but the good news is that Trump's reform officers and task forces have been charged with undertaking exactly that effort.