Posts
This policy, however, doesn’t do anything to ease regulatory burden nor does it truly prevent that burden from growing worst.
I am not overly concerned with the absolute number of regulations that exist. I am a little concerned, but I do not believe that it should be the main focus. I am much more worried about the severity and cost of regulations.
Not all bad regulations are equally bad. The “one for one rule” allows governments to enact a regulation that could cripple an industry while removing a regulation that is a mere mild irritant. It is certainly better that the mild irritant be removed but it could hardly be considered good when an entire industry is suffering and people are losing their jobs.
Ultimately the “one for one rule” is a pretty mild restraint on government intrusion. This doesn’t make it bad, but it certainly makes it not great.
3 comments:
I think it is dumb. Plain and simply dumb.
Like pretty much everything from this government, a preference for something that appears to be smart politics over good policy.
There is no correlation between a regulation here and one there. As you said, the issue is not the number of regulations.
If there is some need for a new regulation of some sort, then the need should stand on its own. The fact that you want to add another regulation - presumably because you've decided there was a need for it - doesn't somehow eliminate the need for that earlier regulation.
And... if there was no need for that earlier regulation in the first place such that there is a benefit in eliminating it... well then go ahead and show some leadership, some hard work and courage and eliminate it now. Why wait to some arbitrary date in the future.
It's just dumb politics getting in the way of good government once again.
One for one is an idealist construct but reality is government will not shrink this way. If thy had the 20 to one rule, my ears might perk up - however getting this nanny state caretaker government to act like conservatives is a daunting task.
But Bill, what do numbers have to do with it? That's what is so dumb about this announcement.
Look at the regulations now. If there is no reason to keep it, then get rid of it now. Why wait until you are ready to introduce new regulations?
And if you can't find any regulations to eliminate right now, because presumably you think they are needed, then they are needed even when you introduce some new regulation.
It's classic politics of dumb that Harper practices. Say things that sound like action on core base issues, and hope that (a) no one realizes how dumb it really is and (b) no one realizes how impossible it would be keep them accountable to this promise.
Post a Comment