Richard Davis: When deregulating, the Trump administration should remember history

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2017 3:48 p.m.

    Interesting how Davis conveniently neglects to mention how much more efficient, competitive, and economical commercial air travel became after it was deregulated. And there are still regulations in place, so what level of deregulation are we talking about?

    Without rules, our highways would be unnavigable; but a 15 MPH speed limit on I-15 makes no sense. There needs to be regulation, but determining the right amount is tricky.

    Esquire
    Your comment about the regulators’ deliberative process is interesting. You have in the past said you were an attorney for FRB. Can you explain why it took the FRB 21 years to write the regulation (Reg W, written in 2003) implementing the Banking Affiliates Act of 1982 (Sections 23A & B of the FRA)? Just because Congress writes a law does not mean the regulators are in any hurry to implement it.

    Craig Clark
    And a more powerful tribute to trump!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 20, 2017 9:42 a.m.

    Vermonter -

    "The VA Department may not be specifically provided for by the Constitution, but it is not unconstitutional."

    I agree with you. I was just trying to put things on Mr Richards level. He would contend that Medicare is unconstitutional, that the Heller ruling was unconstitutional, and by his strict definition, so is the VA.

    So, thanks for the clarification

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 20, 2017 9:01 a.m.

    " . . . President Trump seems determined to undo whatever the Obama administration did."
    ______________________________
    That's a powerful tribute to Barack Obama.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    April 20, 2017 7:17 a.m.

    @Joe Blow.
    I am hoping that you meant to say that there are some great programs that are "not specifically provided for by the Constitution," not "unconstitutional."

    Most people understand "unconstitutional" in the Supreme Court ruling sense--inconsistent with the Constitution.

    The VA Department may not be specifically provided for by the Constitution, but it is not unconstitutional.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 19, 2017 7:42 p.m.

    "It's heartless to see that liberals/Democrats demand that our military sacrifice for America and then refuse to give medical aid to those who served."

    Oh, but that is not the case, but nice try.

    So, the question is this. Is it good and just to provide care for those in the military that sacrifice for America? Absolutely it is. And should be continued. I was certainly not advocating for shutting down the VA.

    But, is the Department of Veterans Affairs provided for in the constitution? I am pretty sure that it is not.

    Bottom line Mr Richards is that there are some great programs that, by all measures are unconstitutional.

    You only rail against those that you don't like. You are not consistent.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 19, 2017 2:52 p.m.

    I see nothing but confused logic when liberals/Democrats force SS and Medicare on America, make us pay a tax for those "promised" services and then tell conservatives/Republicans that we are doing something wrong if we don't stop them from imposing illegal taxes - and that to prove that we conservatives are doing the right thing that we have to let liberals/Democrat keep the trillions of dollars taken illegally from hard-working Americans by breaking the promise that Democrats made when they imposed those taxes. Their reasoning defies all logic.

    It's heartless to see that liberals/Democrats demand that our military sacrifice for America and then refuse to give medical aid to those who served. Perhaps that attitude cost them the election and caused many, many liberals to be fired by the people.

    Yes, liberals/Democrats, conservatives/Republicans are very much aware of history. Our memory shows at the polls.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    April 19, 2017 1:56 p.m.

    Professor Davis,
    Another insightful piece.

    While I believe that some measure of regulation is important, regulation has an extra-constitutional feel about it, and is somewhat anti-democratic. The bridle of an elected Executive provides an appropriate, and constitutional restraint on regulation.

    The voice of people tugs on the reins every now and then--sometimes more firmly than Federal Government bureaucrats appreciate (see Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump). But, just because some may not like it, does not mean that it is inappropriate or unwise. Indeed, the tugging on the reins is actually quite democratic, and quite constitutional.

    And, we should remember that one unintended consequence of what some call "over-regulation" is the increased offshoring of multi-national corporation operations to more "business-friendly" environments.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 19, 2017 10:36 a.m.

    "Liberals and Democrats seem to be fond of crying foul whenever the Constitution is upheld. "

    Conversely, Conservatives and Republicans seem to only cry foul whenever the Democrats trample the constitution.

    If one were honest, they would see that the GOP is just as quick to forgo the constitution.

    I have yet to see the Republican base blasting the current GOP controlled congress for not undoing unconstitutional medicare, unconstitutional VA, unconstitutional healthcare.

    Or the sheer number and scope of the unconstitutional executive orders.

    In fact, the last time the GOP had control of congress and the presidency, they passed the largest unconstitutional entitlement program in decades. That was Medicare part D.

    They also unconstitutionally championed No Child Left Behind.

    Do not take this as a defense of Democrats. It only serves to point out the hypocrisy of the right.

    Remember the constant blather about the cost of Obama's vacations? Or the constant carping about the time Obama spent golfing?

    Now, all we hear from the right is the defense and nuance of why Trump is not nearly as egregious.

    It would be entertaining to watch if it weren't so pathetic.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 19, 2017 9:48 a.m.

    Liberals and Democrats seem to be fond of crying foul whenever the Constitution is upheld. They demand that government, not the people, decide who should keep and bear arms, even though Government was prohibited from infringing on our right. Now Mr. Davis is telling us that unconstitutional rules put in place by Obama should stay on the books. Perhaps a quick glance at Article I, Section 8 would remind everyone that neither Congress nor the President nor the Courts have been authorized to "protect" us from ourselves. That is not a role of government. Interstate regulations are allowed to keep the large States from abusing small States.

    Thankfully our Supreme Law protects us from those who hold that law in contempt. The Court will straighten our Obama's mess should liberals decide to sue to keep Obama's legislation on the books.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 19, 2017 9:37 a.m.

    Thanks, Richard. We've heard so much right-wing propaganda about the evils of regulation that we forget why regulations exist in the first place. It is because the federal government is the only entity large and powerful enough to rein in the destructive tendencies that stem from the profit motive of massive corporations, which are the most powerful authoritarian institutions in America. Like it or not, the government is us; it is our tool; and it is our only recourse against inhumane business practices. But when we have one party that is the party of corporate and big-money power, the government is fighting with one arm tied behind its back. Unfortunately, money talks, and it has made such a convincing case that half of the voting public is duped into voting against their own and the country's best interests. Whether it's pollution, global warming, reckless financial speculation, dangerous products, hazardous workplace conditions, or reasonable gun control, look at whose interests the GOP is representing. I'll give you a hint: it's not yours.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2017 9:08 a.m.

    Trump Casino is open on a huge scale now.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 19, 2017 8:48 a.m.

    The danger really comes from Congress rather than regulations. Congress will too often act based on pressure from lobbyists, including campaign contributions and other influences of money. However, on the regulatory front, the process is much more deliberative and even-handed. Regulations will be promulgated to implement Congressional mandates, and to address issues and problems. The regulations are always grounded in law. Regulators do not generally act rashly or imperviously. They are required to put out a proposed rule, accept and consider comments, and more, all before adopting a regulation. They have to engage in paperwork reduction reviews and cost-benefit analyses. Beating up on regulations is easy to do, but it is overplayed, always for a political or business reason, not for reasons that factor in the general welfare of the whole of the country. We can always improve the regulatory scheme, but at least it is an honest and deliberative process. And just because someone doesn't like a regulation, it doesn't mean the regulation is a bad thing.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 19, 2017 8:34 a.m.

    Those that don't learn from history........

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 19, 2017 4:57 a.m.

    One of the larger threats to our country is the banking industry. Remember about 9 years ago when shoddy, unethical, greedy banking practices put the US banking system on the verge of collapse?

    Yes, some regulations are stifling. Some, not all.

    In our system, those who have too much government regulation just didn't "grease the palms" sufficiently. Those who pay are not over-regulated.