It’s hard to see how either logical outcome (massive deregulation, or regulatory paralysis) serves any useful goal for the American people.
We can quibble about the exact shape of the regulatory state, but it has given us clean water; breathable air; innumerable safeguards in the products we buy and the lives we lead. Simply destroying it is a deeply unserious approach to governing and is a disgrace.
This is like requiring that for every line of code added to a repo, 10 lines need to be removed. This may be okay in the near term but also runs the risk of turning your repo into unmaintainable code golf.
Well, it's hard to make this comparison. It is probably more like some kind of requirement that for any new feature, you need to refactor some percentage of the code, assuming the existing code is quite bloated and legacy. I think this is a closer analog than just lines of code.
It can be done by moving a lot of code to new or existing reusable open source projects for the public benefit. Adding an open source dependency won't really count as "lines added". It is actually a good way independent of any requirement.
Can any government agency really have any effect on a consistent low-performer who is declining faster than ever, when their priority for golf exceeds that for some of the institutions that actually have made America great?
There's just no effect on his day-to-day either way for somebody like that, whether any agencies even exist or not.
Remember, Ronald Reagan knew who Trump was and never would have trusted him as far as he could throw him, like the vast majority of people in the world, not just Americans at the time. Anybody who even knew who Trump was, recognized he had nothing to offer in real estate or anything else and the only thing going was the typical self-promotion from somebody who is fake at heart.
Trump started out synonymous with dishonesty and bankruptcy and never changed his stripes.
He missed out on all the best real estate deals in Florida during some of the best times, he was widely shunned, trust levels make a big difference. When others who had below-average business acumen made out well enough to put Trump's properties to complete shame when it comes to appreciation alone. Which took Trump way more decades than a normal person would do using the same resources too.
Squandering resources is the proven life's work of Trump so far, and it's probably too late to change now.
Reagan said he wanted "more sensible" regulations, of course he meant fewer of them and he was serious.
It's so embarrassing that Trump is not sensible at all, nor serious enough for the job at hand, more like a clown.
I've said it before but Reagan with Alzheimer's was brilliant by comparison and it's more plain to see every day.
Are they taking into account what many of those regulations will save?
For example, they say regulations of lead in drinking water cost $43 billion. That regulation required water systems to replace lead pipes over the next 10 years. So...about $4 billion/year for 10 years.
Various studies put the economic damage in the US due to lead pipes in water systems at about $50 billion per year so this regulation looks like a net win.
Around $1.1 trillion of their claimed $1.8 trillion is from increased fuel efficiency and decreased emissions requirements for cars and trucks.
US economic loses due to air pollution range from around $500 billion to $1 trillion per year. Even a modest reduction in air pollution will save a lot (and increase fuel efficiency can save consumers quit a bit of money), so it seems likely that over 10-20 years these regulations would be a net win. A study in 2011 that analyzed the Clean Air Act found that every $1 spent on air pollution control results in about $30 of economic benefits.
Other things in their lists are PFAS drinking water regulation, and Medicare and Medicaid improvements to long term care facilities and children's health. These two are things that I would expect to have some long term benefit that really should be taken into account.
This 1.8 T was calculated by the AAF a republican right wing group that once asserted that it is proven that in medicine market forces work. So take that absurd amount with a grain of salt.
How about the OMB under Biden, which estimated "information collection" alone takes the government 10.3 billion hours in FY2022? At $50/hour, that's already $500B. If you factor in everything other than "information collection", as well as the cost of compliance from private companies, $1.8T doesn't seem implausible.
We can quibble about the exact shape of the regulatory state, but it has given us clean water; breathable air; innumerable safeguards in the products we buy and the lives we lead. Simply destroying it is a deeply unserious approach to governing and is a disgrace.