Do we really need more regulations? Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein says a regulatory moratorium would cripple the Executive branch.
As reported by Politico, Sunstein testified in Congress today that,
For one thing, “A moratorium would not be a scalpel or a machete, it would be more like a nuclear bomb, in the sense that it would prevent regulations that, let’s say, cost very little, and have very significant economic or public health benefits,” he said.
A moratorium would also block the executive branch from its duty to carry out laws passed by Congress, he added. “A moratorium would violate the requirement of laws to be faithfully executed, so it would have to be a highly qualified moratorium.” A time out on rules would also prevent some deregulatory efforts because they are considered regulatory actions, Sunstein said.
But of course who can reasonably claim that the American economy or public health is better off since the Obama regulatory machine gun started firing? Moreover, we have far more than enough regulation to ensure the safety of the public health and our economy needs far less regulation in order to return to growth.
Anyway under Obama, regulation is really an archaic and inappropriate term. Strangulation is more like it. So what if we just go for a strangulatory moratorium?