All of these points look good, except for the following:
"Require a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more to determine the efficacy of the rule and its potential effects on the formation and growth of new businesses;"
This seems like a bureaucratic nightmare waiting to happen. Typically, these clauses are often used in partisan ways to throw the brakes on seemingly unrelated initiatives.
In theory, I think the idea of analyzing the cost of a new rule is a good idea, but in practice, I doubt it's possible. Since economist can't agree on this sort of thing any more than politicians can, both sides will simply point to the analysis which agree with their position. Which is basically exactly how things work today.
Comments
All of these points look good, except for the following:
"Require a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more to determine the efficacy of the rule and its potential effects on the formation and growth of new businesses;"
This seems like a bureaucratic nightmare waiting to happen. Typically, these clauses are often used in partisan ways to throw the brakes on seemingly unrelated initiatives.
In theory, I think the idea of analyzing the cost of a new rule is a good idea, but in practice, I doubt it's possible. Since economist can't agree on this sort of thing any more than politicians can, both sides will simply point to the analysis which agree with their position. Which is basically exactly how things work today.