She sounds like another scary minion to Trump. I cannot trust anybody who deems herself a scholar to accept to work for Trump and help him carry out the utter destruction of or order and reason. No, Naomi will not surprise us.... How can a smart woman possibly believe in Donald Trump?
8
Professor Rao is a superb pick with the right ideological perspective to help rein in the out of control regulatory state. Many Americans do not understand the tremendous power wielded by unelected, unresponsive bureaucrats. Attorneys who defend clients who are facing , for example, labor or IRS audits or enforcement action will readily attest to the utter lack of competence, lack of accountability, and often personal bias displayed by bureaucrats. Under Chevron, good luck trying to appeal unfair or plain wrong initial agency determinations. Good work President Trump!
3
The ratio of strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks to thoughtful, reasoned discussion is depressingly high in the comments I have read so far. One would think that all regulations currently in place are crucial to the nation's well being, and that any attempt to rationalize them will pump lead in our water, push Granny over the cliff in her wheelchair, and leave trails of corpses rotting in the streets.
Want a case study in administrative overreach and bureaucratic thuggery? Check this out:
http://ij.org/case/oregon-engineering-speech/
Want a case study in administrative overreach and bureaucratic thuggery? Check this out:
http://ij.org/case/oregon-engineering-speech/
4
It is not as if she lacks any experience like a community organizer becoming president.
1
As opposed to a notorious con man who had to pay a $25 million settlement on fraud and racketeering charges before he could be inaugurated? Yes, he had lots of government experience — bribing politicians. And vast legal experience gathered through multiple marriages, serial adulteries and countless lawsuits. But at least he's white, right, Rich?
13
OMG. She served as clerk for the Silent Clarence of the Supremes? Get ready for some heavy duty devastation of regulatory protections throughout the country.
As for Justice Ginsburg's endorsement of the Law School name change, she was being loyal to her opera friend, Antonin. Hardly evidence of Rao's ability to work both sides of the aisle.
Maybe with her experience in serving "...in all three branches of the federal government..." she can bring some order to the disastrous no-nothing members of the administration.
As for Justice Ginsburg's endorsement of the Law School name change, she was being loyal to her opera friend, Antonin. Hardly evidence of Rao's ability to work both sides of the aisle.
Maybe with her experience in serving "...in all three branches of the federal government..." she can bring some order to the disastrous no-nothing members of the administration.
5
When Ronal Reagan stated that the "government was the problem, not the solution" and "get the government of the backs of the American people", he was referring to regulations that he deemed were costly to business and hurting the economy. One of the first ways he decided to get government of the backs of the American people was to break the Air Traffic Control union, thereby lowering the cost of doing business for the Airline industry, but placing safety airline passengers at risk. Reagan removed regulations on banks, which allowed banks to engage in risky investments, resulting in the financial scandal of the decade known as the S & L crisis. Republicans are always complaining about regulations burdening industries and hurting the economy. The result of removing good regulations that protect the public has created "financial scandal of the decade", which the taxpayer eventually must bear.
14
Regulation is not a dirty word. The absence of regulations led to the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent bank runs not to mention the Great Depression. Reagan's deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry led to its collapse costing American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. And, most recently, the Financial Crisis of 2008 that was partly caused by Alan Greenspan's refusal to regulate the derivatives markets. So much for the Maestro. Now, Republicans want to abolish Dodd-Frank that tried to correct some of the banking abuses that led to the Great Recession. Also, they want to eliminate (or control) the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Republicans are always bragging that they are pro-business (really, big-business). Does this mean that they are anti-consumer? When have the Republicans ever introduced a consumer protection law? You could easily find 10 regulations that are outdated, ineffective or even silly (the size of sandwiches on passenger flights were once regulated), and I could find 10 regulations that were nothing short of life-saving. I think I am going to win this argument.
JD
Republicans are always bragging that they are pro-business (really, big-business). Does this mean that they are anti-consumer? When have the Republicans ever introduced a consumer protection law? You could easily find 10 regulations that are outdated, ineffective or even silly (the size of sandwiches on passenger flights were once regulated), and I could find 10 regulations that were nothing short of life-saving. I think I am going to win this argument.
JD
17
"agreeing that non-monetary benefits, to health and the environment, for example, “can play a role.”"- I would ask what her position is- Can play a role or should also play a role?
4
The brunette Kellyanne Conway...an Ayn Rand clone...
Yeah, scholar...it's too bad this woman has not read any books by Jane Mayer.
Anyone that agrees about anything that Scalia and Thomas say or do - is NOT a scholar.
A big, fat Charles G. Koch scholarship to this mind.
Beware of Neomi's bearing gifts...Enuf said...
Yeah, scholar...it's too bad this woman has not read any books by Jane Mayer.
Anyone that agrees about anything that Scalia and Thomas say or do - is NOT a scholar.
A big, fat Charles G. Koch scholarship to this mind.
Beware of Neomi's bearing gifts...Enuf said...
14
“I have a lot of concerns about what this administration is going to do in regulatory areas,” said one of them, John Spotila, who led the office during the Clinton administration. But, he said, “I don’t start with the conviction that Neomi is bad, and anybody Trump picks is going to be horrible and we are doomed.”
He added, “Maybe Neomi will surprise us.”
------------------
Just like Ivanka and Jared, and the other so called democrats/liberals Trump has brought to the WH. Don't bet on it.
He added, “Maybe Neomi will surprise us.”
------------------
Just like Ivanka and Jared, and the other so called democrats/liberals Trump has brought to the WH. Don't bet on it.
6
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better again.
12
When I first heard of the tragedy of the London high rise fire, I thought how could that happen, what happened to the sprinkler system? Then I read it was an old building not required to upgrade. Then I read that Britain has reduced regulations with the no new unless you reverse old regulations. Sure business hate regulations they cost them money, but they have and always will save lives.
20
reply to Heidi, upstate NY
You forgot to mention that the government-owned high rises were put under management of a private company. Pretty good guess that that had something to do with use of cheapo siding installed. Much like the decisions about Flint, MI water supply. And like privately owned prison systems with totally lousy health care provisions for inmates, especially detained undocumented immigrants.
You forgot to mention that the government-owned high rises were put under management of a private company. Pretty good guess that that had something to do with use of cheapo siding installed. Much like the decisions about Flint, MI water supply. And like privately owned prison systems with totally lousy health care provisions for inmates, especially detained undocumented immigrants.
21
We really need to get out the vote during the mid-terms. When will these people get a clue - Little Lord Trumple-Twit is not a man with boundaries. You're not going to be able to rein him in, and this cowering Congress is not willing to impeach him even though he's crazier than Mad King George III. Anyone - whether conservative or liberal - remember who THAT guy was? Good Lord, get a clue.
12
"Foundations affiliated with Mr. Koch have donated at least $50 million to George Mason, a public university, over the past decade"
A puppet bought and paid for by the Koch family.
A puppet bought and paid for by the Koch family.
13
Exactly. Ms. Rao is merely another reactionary shill for a regressive agenda
George Mason University may as well be a subsidiary of Koch Industries.
George Mason University may as well be a subsidiary of Koch Industries.
15
Of course. George Mason University, the homebase of James M Buchanan's effort to change the Constitution to protect the wealthy. All described in "Democracy and Chains." Everyone, you must read this book. We are under assault right now.
13
Great. Appointed by Koch Industries. We are well on our way to offering cheap labor to multi-national corporations. Bringing jobs back to America for $2 an hour. MAGA?
13
If you think RBG's comment that naming the Geo. Mason Law School as the Antonin Scalia School of Law was "altogether fitting" was meant as a pure compliment, you're a little slow on the draw.
16
Generally at the heart of conservatism is the idea that the Constitution is absolute and interpretations of every sentence the founding fathers uttered\wrote is in harmony with that that.
The law and the document are living and breathing. They should AND need to change with the times.
Having said that, this bunch of conservatives of our present day are going much further in bending the laws, or with whole cloth; changing them to fit their narrative.
One prime example is that corporations are not people.
Another, is that free speech is not money.
Just those two things alone, have seriously put a dent into our Democracy and the ability for the have nots to achieve any semblance of a have.
The disparity grows each and every day, which is why any person that is put into power over the actual governing rules needs to be apolitical to the 'enth degree.
~ not ideologues to the right of the right of the right of ...
The law and the document are living and breathing. They should AND need to change with the times.
Having said that, this bunch of conservatives of our present day are going much further in bending the laws, or with whole cloth; changing them to fit their narrative.
One prime example is that corporations are not people.
Another, is that free speech is not money.
Just those two things alone, have seriously put a dent into our Democracy and the ability for the have nots to achieve any semblance of a have.
The disparity grows each and every day, which is why any person that is put into power over the actual governing rules needs to be apolitical to the 'enth degree.
~ not ideologues to the right of the right of the right of ...
10
A regulation is put in place to limit the amount of lead in the water. The lead content in the water drops significantly. Conservatives then say this is a bad regulation because there's no lead in the water. They don't make the connection that the lack of lead in the water is because of the regulation--the regulation is working.
This combined with this belief that corporations will self police due to market forces ( despite decades of empirical evidence to the contrary) means that until things get sufficiently bad for people to remember why regulations are necessary, we're in for a long, hard few years.
This combined with this belief that corporations will self police due to market forces ( despite decades of empirical evidence to the contrary) means that until things get sufficiently bad for people to remember why regulations are necessary, we're in for a long, hard few years.
17
"Maybe Naomi will surprise us," is NOT a ringing bi-partisan endorsement as implied by the article.
8
There is not a single appointee in the Trump administration who has not been given a nefarious agenda. Regulations are made to PROTECT citizens, which is not a Trump concern (see: proposed healthcare legislation to-date). If Trump's people nominated Ms. Rao, it is with the implicit understanding that she will follow their agenda, not her own conscience. We must hope that long-term employees of this agency will slow their work to a crawl to prevent as much damage to the country as possible until this administration is GONE.
14
Scholar and Trump in the same sentence?
6
2:1 is not an objective criteria for contemplating new regulations. If the criteria is truly looking a regulation for substantive contemplation, that is honorable.
However, everything I've read about Kochs' donations include inferential caveats about their receipt. And the larger anonymous donation ensuing therefrom, doesn't stipulate whether or not there are caveats thereto, as well.
George Mason no longer seems to be a middle of the road educational institution in the ideology area.
However, everything I've read about Kochs' donations include inferential caveats about their receipt. And the larger anonymous donation ensuing therefrom, doesn't stipulate whether or not there are caveats thereto, as well.
George Mason no longer seems to be a middle of the road educational institution in the ideology area.
4
I believe the current state of affairs, a capitalist economy rewarding efficient markets, started sometime in the 15th century and has completely taken over both economic and political domains. It should be clear that a natural consequence of the Koch system would be the creation of two tiers, the first, the owners and administrators of the capitalist state and the second, a majority of the population in the role of serfs to serve the capitalist state. Sociologists can measure the relative mobility between the two tiers but it will be miniscule.
Take note Mr. Bannon and Ms. Rao: What we need is not a study (and dismantling) of the administrative state but of the capitalist state. For, it is the administrative state and its regulations that keep the capitalist state in check and allow those who voted for Mr. Bannon's boss to live as free men and not as serfs.
Take note Mr. Bannon and Ms. Rao: What we need is not a study (and dismantling) of the administrative state but of the capitalist state. For, it is the administrative state and its regulations that keep the capitalist state in check and allow those who voted for Mr. Bannon's boss to live as free men and not as serfs.
13
I wonder who might have posited that Capitalism would lead to a two tiered society, with owners of capital at the top and every on else below as a serf? Could it be Marx?
I didn't think there were any real Marxists left but apparently I am wrong.
I didn't think there were any real Marxists left but apparently I am wrong.
1
Scholar? No, that is the wrong description. Mr Trump cannot afford a real Scholar. A real Scholar would not work for him. It is the same thing as calling Mr. Trump a Businessman. Trump, (the Trumps) are not at the Top Level of the BusinessWorld. (far from the World Class level).
9
I am an engineer working on implementing a new rule that came out in January of this year. For the first time, a type of equipment that (who knows, may be very near your house) have safety checks and verification that they work. By work, it means test the equipment to make sure it will not blow up the house of the customer attached to it. Prior to this rule most companies would do a quick check (if that), but not verify the equipment worked in a broader range of operating conditions. Takes time to the test, and much of the old equipment isn't set up for it. It is something that industry, if they valued safety, would have already been doing.
There is a conservative philosophy out that wants to dial back rule making and keep it in Congress, like how things operated before the New Deal. The idea is that rule making is robing Congress of its power.
If you live at a house served by one of these untested devices, would you really want Congress to have the authority, with their political horsetrading, to make the decision about its testing?
Dialing back rule making is how you get buildings that burn like a London high rise. Throw in corporations who can't be sued due to binding arbitration, convicted in a court of law or meaningfully punished for wrong doing and things get scary very fast.
There is a conservative philosophy out that wants to dial back rule making and keep it in Congress, like how things operated before the New Deal. The idea is that rule making is robing Congress of its power.
If you live at a house served by one of these untested devices, would you really want Congress to have the authority, with their political horsetrading, to make the decision about its testing?
Dialing back rule making is how you get buildings that burn like a London high rise. Throw in corporations who can't be sued due to binding arbitration, convicted in a court of law or meaningfully punished for wrong doing and things get scary very fast.
18
Ms. Rao will do what the Koch Brothers have paid her to do. It really is quite that simple.
19
Proof that the Koch Brothers are taking over. Who else do they have working in their "shadow government".
11
Maybe this person gonna be our secret infiltrator to bring about (whatever may be possible) good change, Within this hostile to progressiveness administration.
1
It will not be easy for OIRA to implement the "eliminate two rules for each new one" mandate. The difficulty begins with a seemingly simple question: What's a rule? Is it a "Part" (i.e., roughly a chapter) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), a subpart, a section, a single sentence or word? Do the two "rules" that an agency deletes have to be of the same length or cost/benefit impact of the new regulation? Do they have to have related subject matter? For example, if the Department of Agriculture issues a big rule about wheat production, can it meet the requirement by deleting two small rules about beekeeping? What about rules mandated by statute?
As Ms. Rao apparently recognizes, the deletions of the two rules will have to go through the normal regulatory process: proposal, cost-benefit analysis, comment, final rule, at all stages subject to OIRA review. What will Ms. Rao don when the comments to a proposed deletion are overwhelmingly against the idea or the cost-benefit analysis shows that that the rule proposed for deletion is highly cost-beneficial? What will the courts say when such a deletion is challenged as arbitrary and capricious because its only rationale is "an Executive Order said an agenmcy had to delete some rules because the agency had issued a new one?"
It will indeed be an interesting season in administrative law.
As Ms. Rao apparently recognizes, the deletions of the two rules will have to go through the normal regulatory process: proposal, cost-benefit analysis, comment, final rule, at all stages subject to OIRA review. What will Ms. Rao don when the comments to a proposed deletion are overwhelmingly against the idea or the cost-benefit analysis shows that that the rule proposed for deletion is highly cost-beneficial? What will the courts say when such a deletion is challenged as arbitrary and capricious because its only rationale is "an Executive Order said an agenmcy had to delete some rules because the agency had issued a new one?"
It will indeed be an interesting season in administrative law.
5
The history of regulation is this country is pro-business unless you are against any constraints upon businesses regardless of how they affect the society and individual citizens. Sometimes regulations do not achieve the ends intended and sometimes they produce undesirable outcomes but most opposition to regulations is by businesses whose owners/managers are unwilling to take responsibility for poor outcomes of their practices which affects other things besides their bottom lines. It is a simple fact that the fewer constraints the more opportunities at less costs are available to businesses. Most people who oppose government regulations simply do not want to be held responsible for the effects of what they do which might cost them money. They have no consciences.
8
Congress Is Facing a Time Crunch to Repeal Obamacare, The Scholar Who Will Help Trump’s Regulatory Overhaul and Lawmakers Push to Ease Gun Laws After Virginia Shooting are three interrelated stories.
The first is hype about a non-existent deadline. It is a diversion to reduce attention to the next two header stories. The Republicans can set and reset dates to keep the spotlight on a non-issue. The only dead-lines are to end democracy as we thought we knew it and do nothing except represent the “inglorious” 1%. That is all any Republican effort is: reduce the taxes of the 1%. It does not concern Republicans that Americans will be denied any real protection or meaningful action.
Regulatory overhaul is an ongoing process designed to bring rules up to date. Republican overhaul under so-called president Trump means that any regulation which the 1% or their corporate fronts deem objectionable will be eliminated or rewritten to make it meaningless.
Virginia’s push to arm its population is an example of Groucho Marx’s statement, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” The disturbed shooter had easy access to obtain guns. If he used hand grenades, missiles or germs, the header would read, “Lawmakers push for a bomb in every home and a tank in every driveway.” Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye only blinds the whole world.” Jesus’ “Turn the cheek.” is good church talk to be ignored.
The first is hype about a non-existent deadline. It is a diversion to reduce attention to the next two header stories. The Republicans can set and reset dates to keep the spotlight on a non-issue. The only dead-lines are to end democracy as we thought we knew it and do nothing except represent the “inglorious” 1%. That is all any Republican effort is: reduce the taxes of the 1%. It does not concern Republicans that Americans will be denied any real protection or meaningful action.
Regulatory overhaul is an ongoing process designed to bring rules up to date. Republican overhaul under so-called president Trump means that any regulation which the 1% or their corporate fronts deem objectionable will be eliminated or rewritten to make it meaningless.
Virginia’s push to arm its population is an example of Groucho Marx’s statement, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” The disturbed shooter had easy access to obtain guns. If he used hand grenades, missiles or germs, the header would read, “Lawmakers push for a bomb in every home and a tank in every driveway.” Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye only blinds the whole world.” Jesus’ “Turn the cheek.” is good church talk to be ignored.
8
It's amazing how often 'burdensome government regulations" come between someone with money who wants even more. The only question is how high the body count will get before we remember why we had regulations in the first place.
16
Publicly funded colleges and land-grant universities should NEVER be allowed to accept anonymous gifts with conditions, EVER!! Geo. Mason U.: just be honest and rename yourself Koch University....
26
"Scholar"? Does that mean her thesis was more than 140 characters?
13
Where did she get her degrees from? Conservative judges only hire conservative clerks. Perhaps the Koch Brothers told Clarence to hire her. Did she tell Justice Ginsburg the money was coming from the Koch Brothers. The conservatives tell the "truth" by leaving out facts.
A perfect Trump minion. Destroy the agency she was put in charge of.
Will we have any government left when this confederacy of dunces leaves?
Who need clean air or water?
A perfect Trump minion. Destroy the agency she was put in charge of.
Will we have any government left when this confederacy of dunces leaves?
Who need clean air or water?
8
Her bona fides were described in the article. Because you or I may disagree with someone does not mean they are incompetent or illegitimate.
1
I looked for and did not see any mention of where she got her law degree. I would guess Liberty University which is training its students to take over our government.
We used to be afraid tha the Russians would destroy us during the cold war. Watch out, it is the 1%/Corporations and evangelicals are trying to run this country.
I wonder if New Zealand is a good democracy.
We used to be afraid tha the Russians would destroy us during the cold war. Watch out, it is the 1%/Corporations and evangelicals are trying to run this country.
I wonder if New Zealand is a good democracy.
2
Trumps notion is to de regulate everything. This will throw the country and probably the world into chaos. Regulations have been in place for years. When Regan began deregulation is when everything started to go crazy leading up to the 2008 meltdown and bailout of banks and financial institutions. That's what will happen with deregulation. Let's not even mention how it will mess up the environment. During the Regan era, interest rates were around 20%. This Ms. Rao is so far right it is disgusting. Anyone working in the Trump admin. has lacking confidence. Pence is already raising money to run agains Trump in the next election unless Trump resigns (ha, ha) or is impeached, of course the Republicans don't have the guts to do that.
11
Reminds me of picking teams in school. Only in this case we are picking avatars for the real pick;
The Koch brothers.
The Koch brothers.
5
Paid for by the Koch brothers, and that's exactly what she will produce: dismantling rules that hinder the Koch's, while we the people pay the price....over and over. She may have a law degree and be an able communicator, but she has already sold her integrity.
17
Jeez, Louise - Scalia, Thomas and Hatch, and some guy says "maybe she will surprise us".
New Yorkers may not know this, but GMU is where conservatives come out of the rain during the Democratic administrations. Now, watch out!
New Yorkers may not know this, but GMU is where conservatives come out of the rain during the Democratic administrations. Now, watch out!
4
As a Canadian I find it difficult to understand how Rao, Scalia and Gorsuch could gain their kind of power in a country that had a bloody revolution to put an end to their way of thinking.
I think I remember opening lines of some document being We the People.
I think I remember opening lines of some document being We the People.
17
Color me as one who is extremely skeptical of this nominee. George Mason's law school is not on anyone's top list, in part because of its dependence upon so much in private (i.e. compromising) contributions.
That aside, the hearing for Ms. Rao sound eerily like the hearings for Neil Gorsuch for the SCOTUS. That is, vaguely reassuring responses devoid of specifics, and an extra effort to avoid or disguise an ideological bias. We already know how that worked out.
Am I exaggerating? Well, consider the name of Ms. Rao's law school program: "the Center for the Study of the Administrative State." Where have we heard that term before? Oh, yes, Steve Bannon. And isn't the very term "administrative state" a bit of a derogatory label? Is there any doubt that this so-called academic center will not be sponsoring research that demonstrates the need or benefit of federal regulations and oversight?
That aside, the hearing for Ms. Rao sound eerily like the hearings for Neil Gorsuch for the SCOTUS. That is, vaguely reassuring responses devoid of specifics, and an extra effort to avoid or disguise an ideological bias. We already know how that worked out.
Am I exaggerating? Well, consider the name of Ms. Rao's law school program: "the Center for the Study of the Administrative State." Where have we heard that term before? Oh, yes, Steve Bannon. And isn't the very term "administrative state" a bit of a derogatory label? Is there any doubt that this so-called academic center will not be sponsoring research that demonstrates the need or benefit of federal regulations and oversight?
13
Republicans claim to dislike regulations. But they like them just fine when they are protectionist, anti-union, protect them from competition, etc.
11
Sounds like a good pick. We certainly need less of the "black and white" approach of both liberals and conservatives, but I do think, as an antitrust lawyer for 37 years, that our regulatory apparatus has run amok. The concept that you can have a law or regulation for everything is burying us under often contradictory laws and regulations with massive unintended effects. Thanks to the author for an unusually balanced and analytical article. Refreshing in these days of neo-McCarthyism.
4
Excellent point, but using demolition equipment is not the best path. Which is how Trump/Bannon want things done. Demo it all, rip everything out, treat it all like weeds, and rip 'em out!
We need precision, and extreme non-partisan analysis and eventual revision. And we dont need a thug at the door deciding that any regs that are pro consumer, pro employee are by nature not good, while favoring big money interests is divine right.
Most Americans favor revisions...across many levels of govt, but only the insane want to simply go in with heavy equipment and wreck it all.
We need precision, and extreme non-partisan analysis and eventual revision. And we dont need a thug at the door deciding that any regs that are pro consumer, pro employee are by nature not good, while favoring big money interests is divine right.
Most Americans favor revisions...across many levels of govt, but only the insane want to simply go in with heavy equipment and wreck it all.
4
Agreed. Without doubt there is a need for federal regulations in many areas, particularly those involving public health, safety, or the environment.
But anyone who has had the dubious pleasure of thumbing through the code of federal regulations will understand that we don't necessarily need more regulations, but smarter, better crafted regulation.
The problem here seems to arise from the fact that there is well deserved distrust of the current administration at doing this task.
But anyone who has had the dubious pleasure of thumbing through the code of federal regulations will understand that we don't necessarily need more regulations, but smarter, better crafted regulation.
The problem here seems to arise from the fact that there is well deserved distrust of the current administration at doing this task.
1
At Truthout, I read an edited transcript of a Mark Karlin author interview. The subject is "Democracy in Chains" by Nancy MacLean. The subject of the book is the influence of the late Nobel economist James McGill Buchanan on the thinking of Charles Koch.
The premise is that there is a decades-long strategy afoot by America's libertarian oligarchy to "change the rules of democratic governance."
In the early 2000s, the main money man for the libertarian oligarchy, Charles Koch, discovered "the approach developed by James McGill Buchanan for how to take apart the liberal state."
Charles Koch "believes that the market is the wisest and fairest form of governance." Regarding right-wing causes, "Charles Koch supplies the money, but it is James McGill Buchanan (d. 2008) who supplied the ideas that make the money effective."
Charles Koch and James McGill Buchanan believe in "a political and economic theory based on the notion that free-reign capitalism would justly reward the smart and the hardworking and rightly punish those who failed to take responsibility for themselves or who had lesser ability."
We are living in the Charles Koch Administration. Koch's goal: "free capital from restraint."
The crackling electricity in the air is created by the tension between democracy and capitalism.
The premise is that there is a decades-long strategy afoot by America's libertarian oligarchy to "change the rules of democratic governance."
In the early 2000s, the main money man for the libertarian oligarchy, Charles Koch, discovered "the approach developed by James McGill Buchanan for how to take apart the liberal state."
Charles Koch "believes that the market is the wisest and fairest form of governance." Regarding right-wing causes, "Charles Koch supplies the money, but it is James McGill Buchanan (d. 2008) who supplied the ideas that make the money effective."
Charles Koch and James McGill Buchanan believe in "a political and economic theory based on the notion that free-reign capitalism would justly reward the smart and the hardworking and rightly punish those who failed to take responsibility for themselves or who had lesser ability."
We are living in the Charles Koch Administration. Koch's goal: "free capital from restraint."
The crackling electricity in the air is created by the tension between democracy and capitalism.
11
Thanks for this excellent information. Free markets are not the end all and be all of our economy. I'm most concerned about financial deregulation and another Great Recession, which this time could be worse and actually be another Great Depression. Unfettered free markets in healthcare are likewise unwise as it gives too much power to the for profit insurance industry-- which already is being given windfalls by the most conservative GOP members who would love nothing better than to eliminate all benefit requirements to lure in customers.
This Cruz approach to allow health plans to offer low premiums for virtually no coverage would be a disaster for the delicate balance of keeping premiums low enough to encourage wide participation. The no-coverage plan patients would still end up in the ER for emergencies, causing premiums to rise for all.
Not all regulations are bad. Makes a nice theory, but when have for profit companies ever considered the public good when it comes to the environment, worker safety, and product safety?
This Cruz approach to allow health plans to offer low premiums for virtually no coverage would be a disaster for the delicate balance of keeping premiums low enough to encourage wide participation. The no-coverage plan patients would still end up in the ER for emergencies, causing premiums to rise for all.
Not all regulations are bad. Makes a nice theory, but when have for profit companies ever considered the public good when it comes to the environment, worker safety, and product safety?
8
Yes, I just finished reading her book, which I found both terrifying and compelling. In regards to the Koch-funded renaming of the Law School, it is the case, as the university faculty senate concluded, that Koch's funding stipulates that the university must direct funds to Rao's Center, which, McLean's book documents, grew out of the Center that Buchanan had developed, with, of course, Koch funding.
Koch is also on the Board of this Center--which means that he runs it. So, while there is certainly a debate raging over the legal basis of Administrative agencies' rule-making authority, you can be quite sure that none of those hired as Center researchers and none of the "poor" students unable to afford post-graduate legal study will represent any position other than the extreme radical views favored by Koch, as his earlier funding of so many other "think-tanks" so clearly documents.
Koch is also on the Board of this Center--which means that he runs it. So, while there is certainly a debate raging over the legal basis of Administrative agencies' rule-making authority, you can be quite sure that none of those hired as Center researchers and none of the "poor" students unable to afford post-graduate legal study will represent any position other than the extreme radical views favored by Koch, as his earlier funding of so many other "think-tanks" so clearly documents.
9
The "common ground" that Neomi Rao found with Justices Scalia and Thomas on statutory interpretation likely ignored the famous lecture in 1947, by Justice Frankfurter, a most traditional conservative on the Warren Court, stated that laws were expressions of policy arising out of specific situations and addressed to the attainment of particular ends." In describing the approaches to statutory construction of three of the Court's most famous and revered justices, Frankfurter concluded that each attempted, in his own way, to answer the question "What was below the surface of the words yet fairly a part of them"? For the judge to give his own meaning to words used by Congress was to abandon the accepted judicial function of divining Congressional intent and substituting the judge's own policy preferences. But Rao would have been quite unlikely to challenge the justices on their bread and butter issue: finding a way to substitute their own arch-conservative views for the intention of a much more moderate body of legislators. That Rao has surfaced in the current republican administration intent on minimizing the regulatory effect of a law passed by others to address national problems is not surprising.
8
John Yew enabled torture of aliens.
This lady is bent on "torturing" the rules and regulations we all rely on to keep us safe - from predators and scammers and even our own GOP legislators, ready to sell out their own citizens on behalf of the greedy super-wealthy.
Where does this end? Not in a good place. It beggars belief!
This lady is bent on "torturing" the rules and regulations we all rely on to keep us safe - from predators and scammers and even our own GOP legislators, ready to sell out their own citizens on behalf of the greedy super-wealthy.
Where does this end? Not in a good place. It beggars belief!
7
Anyone who accepts a position in trump's regime cannot have integrity, because everything he does is based on lies, deceptions, betrayals & illicit gains for himself ... and no matter what, he always harms others in some way.
And she's supposed to help trump and his toads stay within the law as they wipe out or change regulations to aid the 1% and the corporate polluters. Right. She'll aid and abet the destruction of the country like all of his suck ups.
Most of us know that capitalism is a system where greed runs amuck constantly and will do so forever unless their is sensible regulation on a number of levels, including regulation of banks, corporations, builders, various monopolies and other entities.
But no such wisdom, caring or understanding exists in the trump administration. They are bent on destroying the world in pursuit of wealth and unbridled power. They have no concept of the public good and are a disgrace to humankind. No doubt Ms Rao has drank the kool aid and will play her part in ripping needed regulations to shreds.
And she's supposed to help trump and his toads stay within the law as they wipe out or change regulations to aid the 1% and the corporate polluters. Right. She'll aid and abet the destruction of the country like all of his suck ups.
Most of us know that capitalism is a system where greed runs amuck constantly and will do so forever unless their is sensible regulation on a number of levels, including regulation of banks, corporations, builders, various monopolies and other entities.
But no such wisdom, caring or understanding exists in the trump administration. They are bent on destroying the world in pursuit of wealth and unbridled power. They have no concept of the public good and are a disgrace to humankind. No doubt Ms Rao has drank the kool aid and will play her part in ripping needed regulations to shreds.
18
We two multi billionaire brothers will give the people a govt we deserve and we have the right to pursue more wealth on the backs of regular Americans. We are at home in the GOP and feel health care is only for the rich and poor folks need to clean our latrines. The good old days of robber barons are back under an oligarch TRump apprentice to Putin.
12
Why do so many Indian immigrants and their first-generation American children seem to be drawn to right wing Republican politics?
7
Huh? Some do, but most don't. Most Indian-Americans identify themselves as either Independent or Democrat.
3
Could it be that they have worked very hard to get where they are and perhaps are less likely to support government largess?
3
I thought the same. Nicky Haley, Bobby Jindal. But let's not forget Preet Bharara. And overall, Indian Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. According to a 2016 poll, only about 18 percent of Indians view the Republican party favorably.
Regulatory functions of government need continue review and reevaluations to make sure that they are serving the public good. Trump's understanding of regulations amounts to nothing more that reactionary attitudes that businesses should only be constrained by the marketplace, and not then if it displeases the businesses so affected who should expect government assistance to provide them license to have what they want. It does appear that this person is going to attempt to reorganize regulations to assure that government does nothing to conflict with the interests of conservative business interests.
5
George Mason U has long been known for it's conservative-leaning academics and departments. So it was easy pickings for the Koch brothers to create centers to legitimize their agenda through academic research. It's one thing to say a center would be created anyway. It's another for it to be bought and paid for by people with a well-known extreme agenda. Academic freedom is important and universities, especially public ones, should not limit the views or policy research of its faculty members. But George Mason--and the State of Virginia--have crossed a line to allow the Kochs to leverage a State taxpayer-supported institution to legitimate their extremist agenda. Let them fund their centers in private universities.
20
Respectable news organizations should much more prominently cover in well-analyzed depth the impact on lives of any weakened, rescinded or unenforced regulation.
Seems to impact my life more than Tweets.
Seems to impact my life more than Tweets.
8
Aren't these law professors the same people who told us that mandatory seat belts were unconstitutional or the removal of lead from gasoline would ruin the auto industry resulting in few health benefits? Note the story makes no mention of including scientists or public health specialists as a vital part of the regulatory mix. Of course not, their research and studies are far too speculative to include, especially when the law is so clearly stated. And, not too worry, neither Rao or her colleagues will ever mention the welfare clause of the constitution.
8
Anyone who would look fondly on Clarence Thomas (who's sullen silence is anathema to jurisprudence)- is someone to be viewed suspiciously. Democrats must be getting weary and willing to give a pass to anyone they feel won't be "too harmful" .
14
The 2 Trillion dollar cost of regulation deserves a link, to evaluate at least by category how legitimate this is:
http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/red-tape-rising-six...
N.Y. State has a regulation that requires periodic inspection of cars, tire thread, lights properly aimed and many other items. It seems reasonable, but the even larger more liberal state, California, only requires testing for Smog emission.
Yet, in 20 years I've not seen a car with a blowout, or with lights shining in my eyes. It's unfortunate that this issue has been so partisanized that we can't make an effort to evaluate what regulations are justified and which are not.
http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/red-tape-rising-six...
N.Y. State has a regulation that requires periodic inspection of cars, tire thread, lights properly aimed and many other items. It seems reasonable, but the even larger more liberal state, California, only requires testing for Smog emission.
Yet, in 20 years I've not seen a car with a blowout, or with lights shining in my eyes. It's unfortunate that this issue has been so partisanized that we can't make an effort to evaluate what regulations are justified and which are not.
6
Drive the Hutch between Stanford and Fairfield, CT. You will go blind from high beams due to no lighting on this old roadway. Plenty of pot holes in NE where local taxes are expected to pay for maintenance.
The author's patent prejudice against an American of Indian decent is reprehensible. This lady has impeccable credentials that are indisputable and will certainly benefit our country. This author's criticism of her is not based on substantive grounds and fails at hiding his prejudices. Articles such as this further erode the NYT's tattered reputation as a "news" organization.
6
RGV: The prejudice is on the other foot, namely yours.
4
Did you read this article or something else? I've seldom seen such a bad case of projection. Wow.
6
If you can identify even a hint of racism or ethnic prejudice in this article, I will come to Boston and paint your house.
5
To call these Trump's Regulatory Overhauls is giving him way to much credit for any consistent agenda about regulations. He is totally dependent on Bannon and industry lobbyists for all this deregulation. The stock market sees this and is confident that costs will go down for business, and there is a "devil may care" attitude about any negative effects since they will be pushed to the future. Humanity takes a back seat to profits.
16
We are going down the tubes so fast, it's making my head spin. At 72 it's hard enough coping with issues related to health and aging, and it's difficult - even as a retiree with time to read - coping with the deluge of bad and alarming news.
But to read this article, which, at "best" seems to be hoping for a miraculous "cure" from a Koch-fed super conservative woman, ready to dismantle the fabric of laws meant to protect us all, leaves me gasping for breath. As the decline of our nation continues to speed up.
I'm discouraged, disheartened, demoralized and disgusted. I feel as if Vampires are sucking my life's blood. Or squeezingbthe breath out of me. I am just sick at heart for us all.
God help this nation! For I fear we're on a dangerous, dangerous glidepath, gathering speed, to becoming a Failed State.
But to read this article, which, at "best" seems to be hoping for a miraculous "cure" from a Koch-fed super conservative woman, ready to dismantle the fabric of laws meant to protect us all, leaves me gasping for breath. As the decline of our nation continues to speed up.
I'm discouraged, disheartened, demoralized and disgusted. I feel as if Vampires are sucking my life's blood. Or squeezingbthe breath out of me. I am just sick at heart for us all.
God help this nation! For I fear we're on a dangerous, dangerous glidepath, gathering speed, to becoming a Failed State.
37
Wow !!! You are really feeling it.
Thank you for taking time to express your thoughts. I agree with you whole heartedly. --- claire in WA state.
1
Never trust anyone who has Koch money. She has been bought.
29
I think they all have. Because that's what they value most- money.
1
Too bad the conservatives don't appreciate that they are going to be the ultimat losers in their darwinian politics. In the end, their "me first" approach is not a survival characteristic. Seems like humans have taken these paths before.
10
Her association with sophists like Scalia, Thomas and Hatch let us know exactly what she'll do, whatever she's expected to do, what's she's told. Just like Scalia and Thomas.
Cannot believe the canonization of a dishonest partisan hack like Scalia continues to this day. Wow, he ate pizza? Gee, I guess he was just like us, huh?
Puhleaze.
Cannot believe the canonization of a dishonest partisan hack like Scalia continues to this day. Wow, he ate pizza? Gee, I guess he was just like us, huh?
Puhleaze.
20
You could use a touch of "sophistry" yourself One thing they are not is Sophists
1
No, not anything like you.... He was not full of hatred...
Regardless of her credentials, imagine wanting to join a ship whose captain & crew are sailing 'round Cape Horn & going down, all hands on board? De-regulation protects business interests, damn the costs to the environment, people's health, the safety & protection of individuals caught in big business's many wide, unforgiving nets & traps? Shame on her & her faulty ideology. She would far better put her talents to helping save America rather than helping sink it.
14
I love to read these stories as I know it will shake, rattle and roll the liberals. Kudos to the New York Times. You are like a TV guide. Trump front and center.
4
That's interesting because I, a liberal, don't love reading stories about millions of Trump voters being shaken, rattled and rolled becaus they're losing their health care thanks to the Republicans' "beautiful" health care plan.
3
I'm assuming that her parents emigrated to the US for a better life, due to lack of regulations in India.
11
"Lack of regulations in India"? Wouldn't it be great if people spouting talking points - whether on the left or the right - had some idea what they were talking about? Until the early 1990s, India had a largely socialist economy. Its current rise to economic prominence started when it adopted a more market-oriented approach. And the not-so-subtle racism against Ms. Reo because of her origin is no more attractive coming from the left than from the right.
3
Her parents are physicians. In all likelihood they attended highly subsidized state medical schools in India, (annual tuition in the 80s was next to nothing), took the FMGEMS exam (precursor to USMLE), entered residency programs in the US and proceeded to practice earning six figure salaries each. Nothing wrong with that, but it was the economic opportunities that this country offers to physicians that motivated them to immigrate to the US. On a related note, kids in India enter medical school after high school and receive their Bachelors in Medicine in less then 5 years after high school unlike the long drawn process after high school here
2
One of the reasons they emigrated was that India was so over regulated there was little chance for creative and innovative people to do anything but gasp for breath... India's period of economic rise began when the government finally started to move from the strangling anti-free market theories of socialism...
1
Neomi Rao is the best pick for the Job. All will be pleased in the end of her abilities to get the job done.
5
I hope you know what you're talking about. This is the first I've heard of her.
3
Yes, because those aligned with the Koch brothers are always so wonderfully altruistic and selfless (LOL!)
2
Oh, the joy of self-rationalizations. What shall it be, Ms. Rao? Politics, career, ego...or the well-being and of Americans. I doubt Ms. Rao will lose sleep over enabling trump- and bannon-led destructiveness. It looks as if she will a fine tool doing trumps bidding to revenge and financial corruption. Congrats, Ms. Rao.
8
One feature of this article is its illustration of the media's -- the Times's -- penchant for adopting conservative catchphrases. In this case, the catchphrase is "administrative state."
Until I read this article, I thought the catchphrase had been confined to Trump White House operatives. Thanks to this article, I know it's been enshrined in the name of a Center at the (right-leaning) George Mason University law school. And now it is splattered, as though it were normal discourse, throughout this article on Neomi Rao.
Apparently, through mindless repetition, "administrative state" is on track to achieve the same pseudo-objective status as widely-used but loaded phrases like "unborn baby" and "bureaucrat".
But before "administrative state" becomes reflexive usage, maybe -- just maybe! -- people should ask how well it describes our government. Is NASA well-described by "administrative state"? NOAA? The FBI? The State Department? NIH? The main purposes of the Defense Department? NIST and its Nobel Prize winners? The Functions of the Export-Import Bank? The Bureau of the Mint? The National Park Service?
Sure, there's a lot of administration and regulation in government. But shrinking our concept of government to its "administrative" functions subtly undermines people's understanding and appreciation of its broad and essential functions.
I hope thoughtful people and thebTimes will resist this linguistic denigration.
Until I read this article, I thought the catchphrase had been confined to Trump White House operatives. Thanks to this article, I know it's been enshrined in the name of a Center at the (right-leaning) George Mason University law school. And now it is splattered, as though it were normal discourse, throughout this article on Neomi Rao.
Apparently, through mindless repetition, "administrative state" is on track to achieve the same pseudo-objective status as widely-used but loaded phrases like "unborn baby" and "bureaucrat".
But before "administrative state" becomes reflexive usage, maybe -- just maybe! -- people should ask how well it describes our government. Is NASA well-described by "administrative state"? NOAA? The FBI? The State Department? NIH? The main purposes of the Defense Department? NIST and its Nobel Prize winners? The Functions of the Export-Import Bank? The Bureau of the Mint? The National Park Service?
Sure, there's a lot of administration and regulation in government. But shrinking our concept of government to its "administrative" functions subtly undermines people's understanding and appreciation of its broad and essential functions.
I hope thoughtful people and thebTimes will resist this linguistic denigration.
14
The Administrative State is the government we rely on for clean air and water; safe interstate highways; safe dams and bridges; funding for public education and public health. Bannon is a known crack pot from Harvard; he is also a known alcoholic who has finally been shoved aside by Jared Kushner. Kushner might not be a lot better than Bannon; however, he is sane. The tragedy for our current governance is that these third rate men are now pulling the levers of power in D.C. Jared Kushner's qualifications are his background as a real estate developer, as is the background of Trump. Tillerson is the man who led Exxon for years, and is now heading the State Dept. How many times did Pruitt sue the EPA to allow for more pollution in the Gulf? How did a foreclosure king acquire the skills required to run the Dept. of the Interior? We would have to return to the days of Warren G. Harding, or James Buchanan to find a more practiced group of looters.
1
all hail the corporate welfare state and the 1% - the rest of us - eat cake
6
Ms. Rao may be, as you say, a "scholar", but in the face of Trump's Twitters I doubt she can accomplish much. Trump's contemplated missions are not based on knowledge and education. Just take a look at what he has done so far...........
4
Anyone who has studied tort law knows that the pursuit of money leads to cutting corners, and a lack of concern for the safety of others and the wholesomeness of the land. If Ms. Rao, an academic, is contemplating extensive deregulation, she must be pretty morally corrupt. Wanting to go back to a time before OSHA, before the EPA, before the FDA is inconceivable to me. I live by the beach and can now see humpback whales from shore each summer because regulations prevented their extinction, and catch regulations stabilized the fish populations that they rely upon. How an agenda touting deregulation is regarded as anything other than sheer evil is beyond me.
107
The agenda described is to study regulations and work to streamline and eliminate wasteful and excessive regulations. Your comment about anyone studying tort law is revealing. My "study" of tort law - and tort lawyers - describes a mixed bag. For sure, there are many instances of regulations that are needed for the public welfare and to prevent abuse - but also many instances of tort attorneys making millions (1/3 of plaintiff awards!) off of minor mistakes that add enormous costs to our commercial system. OSHA, in particular, is more interested in working for the plaintiff's bar than preventing injuries. Note their attempt last year to prevent companies requiring drug screens following accidents. Let's reform the plaintiff attorney commission plan first!
5
As a woman, I find myself bewildered by any female professional who wants to work with this administration. Of course, I'm puzzled by women who voted for Trump too.
10
The need for regulation is actually enshrined in the Bible. Adam and Eve had all the good things, but they got greedy and went for the forbidden fruit. And God laid down regulations that, to this day, holds us back from all those tempting excesses.
6
That's just for non-rich people. The Koch brothers are different.
1
Deregulate, deregulate. Go back to financial crisis, burning buildings, and poisoned waters. Famous “ have you no shame” was never more apt. How can a post industrial society apply interpretation rules supposedly applied to a land of open frontiers, slaves, and strictly WASP rulers?
5
No, no, no! There are some darn good regulations out there, put in place because the American people have been screwed in the past by greedy bankers and greedy businessmen. The bankers and businessmen have created godawful messes, financial and environmental. In order to prevent future messes, those regulations were put in place.
Now our sleazy president is going to roll back those regulations on businesses so can operate unfettered by rules of decency. So BIG "haves" can steal more money from hardworking Americans or from vulnerable Americans. So BIG "haves" can pollute what has not already been polluted. So BIG "haves" can treat working people, both middle class and those just a smidgen above middle class, worse than they are already being treated.
I am not sure that the working middle class knows how often the so called elite college educated workers have been layed off in their lives. They get layed off all the time. Every month, companies lay off elite workers in small batches so they fly under the SEC rules of having to report lay offs. The companies hiring elite workers have eliminated pensions for college educated elite workers. This started decades ago. Elite workers have to fund their own pensions now. The Human Resources departments in companies with elite workers do not make sure elite workers are treated fairly anymore. HR works with top management *only* on hiring and layoffs. Never complain to HR; you become a layoff target, even if you work hard.
Now our sleazy president is going to roll back those regulations on businesses so can operate unfettered by rules of decency. So BIG "haves" can steal more money from hardworking Americans or from vulnerable Americans. So BIG "haves" can pollute what has not already been polluted. So BIG "haves" can treat working people, both middle class and those just a smidgen above middle class, worse than they are already being treated.
I am not sure that the working middle class knows how often the so called elite college educated workers have been layed off in their lives. They get layed off all the time. Every month, companies lay off elite workers in small batches so they fly under the SEC rules of having to report lay offs. The companies hiring elite workers have eliminated pensions for college educated elite workers. This started decades ago. Elite workers have to fund their own pensions now. The Human Resources departments in companies with elite workers do not make sure elite workers are treated fairly anymore. HR works with top management *only* on hiring and layoffs. Never complain to HR; you become a layoff target, even if you work hard.
5
Neomi is deluded in her quest ! Obvioulsy she does not understand TRUMP and his evil mission to destroy the country. She DOES NOT SPEAK or represent the US ! It her ego thats clouding her mentation !
It's doubtful that Rao given her background will "surprise" us or the Trump administration as Rod Rosenstein did after Comey's firing.
4
A "scholar" beholden to Koch Bros for his "prestigious" titled position, and linked to the extremist "originalist" ideology of Scalia, and Clarence Thomas?
Sounds like more proof positive that academia has been bought-and-paid for by the monied right wing!
THis is what Charles Fergusen warned us about in "Inside Job" and presented in action, with the likes of Glenn Hubbard and Martin Feldstein, both of whom touted "scholarly" analyses of companies who PAID THEM for the "scholarly" analysis.
Faux scholarship to go along with faux news, faux truth, and faux morality...
Sounds like more proof positive that academia has been bought-and-paid for by the monied right wing!
THis is what Charles Fergusen warned us about in "Inside Job" and presented in action, with the likes of Glenn Hubbard and Martin Feldstein, both of whom touted "scholarly" analyses of companies who PAID THEM for the "scholarly" analysis.
Faux scholarship to go along with faux news, faux truth, and faux morality...
8
So, Ms. Rao managed to get a thumbs up for the name change for the George Mason University School of Law from a clearly asleep-at-the-switch Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And this newspaper crows that this demonstrates Ms. Rao's ability to "work across the ideological divide."
My goodness, our New York Times editors have certainly appeared to have lowered the bar that defines what it means to be bi-partisan or found a way to employ a new way to inject sacrasm in their news articles, haven't they?
And this newspaper crows that this demonstrates Ms. Rao's ability to "work across the ideological divide."
My goodness, our New York Times editors have certainly appeared to have lowered the bar that defines what it means to be bi-partisan or found a way to employ a new way to inject sacrasm in their news articles, haven't they?
4
Actually, the name originally advocated by the brilliant Rao was Antonin Scalia School of Law, which resulted in an unfortunate acronym. This is her second go-round.
She did somewhat better on her second try.
She did somewhat better on her second try.
3
Will America ever be great again?
6
Koch, Scalia, Thomas, Pruitt - what could go wrong?
8
unqualified,biased and bought and paid for.deplorable yet again.
3
That seemingly with a "straight face", academics can say they take tens of millions of dollars for their institution and it's affiliated centers, but the donors have no influence.
She is bought and highly paid for - The Koch Brothers and The Bannonites own her!
I feel quite sure they told Trump "don't ask -it's too complicated BUT she'll tow the line!"
She is bought and highly paid for - The Koch Brothers and The Bannonites own her!
I feel quite sure they told Trump "don't ask -it's too complicated BUT she'll tow the line!"
8
"She is the founder of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason, which is affiliated with the [Antonin Scalia] law school and has been a beneficiary of the donation from the Charles Koch Foundation."
Resume items don't get worse than this... UGH!
Resume items don't get worse than this... UGH!
12
Sounds like another great addition to the team, why it takes so long to get people approved is a question. I would force every committee to work 60 hour weeks until the backlog is approved or denied. Do your job!!!
2
This is a very encouraging article. I hope Ms. Rao is successful in dismantling Obama's regulatory legacy. I wish her all the luck in the world.
3
Until it affects you negatively, and it most likely will.
5
When this administration finally comes to an end, someone needs to hold onto this woman's computer. It will contain the blueprint for reversing her destructive legacy.
6
This is an example of how deep the Kochs and ultra conservatives have clawed into academia in this country. Using their capitol to influence thought at every level.
5
Most here believe that all regulations are good, Reps are evil, and if we just had the Dems in charge of all, everyone would live happily ever after.
You have been brainwashed. NOT all regulations are good, mostly because they start out with a good idea - solve a problem. Then the staffers and lobbyists go to work and wa la - the problem is not solved, it may be worse; and the costs to us all are 10x what Congress or the President thought (or told us).
And then the NYTimes tells us we need another regulation for the first regulation. If you disagree, you are a racist and must be an evil corporate loving Rep. UNBELIEVABLE!!
Everyone should have to work in DC for 1 week, attend meetings and join the brigade of discussions. You would weep for our future, but one thing is for sure - you would demand fewer regulations, and smaller government. As those in business know - the larger a company becomes, the more wasteful and less focused it becomes. Then, it is split up because it cannot function at its present size.
You have been brainwashed. NOT all regulations are good, mostly because they start out with a good idea - solve a problem. Then the staffers and lobbyists go to work and wa la - the problem is not solved, it may be worse; and the costs to us all are 10x what Congress or the President thought (or told us).
And then the NYTimes tells us we need another regulation for the first regulation. If you disagree, you are a racist and must be an evil corporate loving Rep. UNBELIEVABLE!!
Everyone should have to work in DC for 1 week, attend meetings and join the brigade of discussions. You would weep for our future, but one thing is for sure - you would demand fewer regulations, and smaller government. As those in business know - the larger a company becomes, the more wasteful and less focused it becomes. Then, it is split up because it cannot function at its present size.
2
Without specific examples, your comment says nothing...
3
Examples of administrative folly? Think about rules and regulations designed to prepare for and deal with the Y2K "crisis," which of course proved to be nothing more than a media-driven farce... Many of those were still on the books until a few weeks ago and apparently some worker bees were still writing reports required by them... A mindless exercise and complete waste of resources...
1
“I don’t start with the conviction that Neomi is bad, and anybody Trump picks is going to be horrible and we are doomed.”
Talk about whistling past the graveyard ... now go check out NY Mag article on accelerating climate change and tell me Rao's appointment isn't a direct assault on our health and wellbeing - and the planet's.
Talk about whistling past the graveyard ... now go check out NY Mag article on accelerating climate change and tell me Rao's appointment isn't a direct assault on our health and wellbeing - and the planet's.
6
A Koch lawyer deciding what regulations benefit the country. BwaaaHaHa
7
"How did she view an order by Mr. Trump to eliminate two regulations for every new one, and how should it be carried out?
"As she answered, Ms. Rao measured her words, calling the policy 'an important step' in broadly reducing regulatory burden. 'It can work,' she said. 'The way I think it will work in practice is that agencies will identify regulations to eliminate....' "
How droll. Actually, how degrading. An obviously intelligent person with at least some vestige of conscience trying to rationalize a one-off hipshot from the tweeter-in-chief. I wonder if she enjoys wallowing in this stuff, or rather (I hope) that she must take a shower immedictely after work.
"As she answered, Ms. Rao measured her words, calling the policy 'an important step' in broadly reducing regulatory burden. 'It can work,' she said. 'The way I think it will work in practice is that agencies will identify regulations to eliminate....' "
How droll. Actually, how degrading. An obviously intelligent person with at least some vestige of conscience trying to rationalize a one-off hipshot from the tweeter-in-chief. I wonder if she enjoys wallowing in this stuff, or rather (I hope) that she must take a shower immedictely after work.
7
At this point anyone joining the Trump administration is suspect.
6
Do you see how partisan legal scholars "influence" our democracy? ...so-called democracy?
How to evaluate their negative "harmful" influence on the society?
How to evaluate their negative "harmful" influence on the society?
Excellent article, thank you. I'm as liberal as the day is long but even I don't believe that all regulations are presumptively sound. That's just the opposite extreme of believing that regulation is presumptively bad. Quite a lot in our lives is governed by regulations and that's great, but too much judicial deference has turned agencies into powerful lawmaking bodies with almost no accountability to the public. Bad regulations almost always have a winner with something to lose, so reversing them is difficult, to put it mildly. For that reason, creating new regulations ought to be deliberative, transparent and truly reviewable. Lacking those protections, regulations become another politically-driven tool of the executive branch, which will certainly serve some advocates' interests, but it mostly just undermines public confidence in the system.
3
Well regulations have their place, but many are not great. They do things that we never intended or wanted. Sort of like all those regulations about essential coverage for health insurance.
1
Having written laws myself, I can say from experience politicians who must pass them like ambiguous wording. It gives the lawyers something to argue about. Regulatory overhaul can only mean eliminating and weakening what already exists.
7
'...Scott Pruitt has moved to undo, delay or otherwise block more than 30 environmental rules, a regulatory rollback larger in scope than any other over so short a time in the agency’s 47-year history, according to experts in environmental law'.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-epa-chief-pruitt-re...
Bleak News, all this. My Nephew recently completed a Fellowship at EPA, and he could not get out of there fast enough. ' These new people don't believe in Science!', he told me recently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-epa-chief-pruitt-re...
Bleak News, all this. My Nephew recently completed a Fellowship at EPA, and he could not get out of there fast enough. ' These new people don't believe in Science!', he told me recently.
11
I don't know anything about this professor beyond this article but she sounds like a competent person for the post, despite the insinuations of Mr. Eder about how she must be Koch brothers' puppet. More disturbing are the ad hominem attacks on her in this comment section. Apparently, when your views are not in accordance with the left-liberal dogma, character assassination is fair game. Gee, if you are against several regulations however outdated or meaningless they are, you must be poisoning water reservoirs in your spare time, and clubbing baby seals to death for amusement.
It always amuses me how NYT and many of its lefty readers view the world outside of their liberal media bubble. The Koch brothers are branded as "conservative" by Mr. Eder and his readers even though they describe themselves as pro-free market libertarians. Even though Charles Koch clearly articulates his views to the press, e.g., in the Marketplace interview below, lefties look to Jane Meyer's book where they read what Meyer's thinks Koch brothers stand on exactly the same issues -- aided by endless insinuations!!
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/10/21/business/corner-office/full-inter...
The level of group-think among lefties is comparable to those among the Brietbartians. Is it any wonder that we got Trump for President?
It always amuses me how NYT and many of its lefty readers view the world outside of their liberal media bubble. The Koch brothers are branded as "conservative" by Mr. Eder and his readers even though they describe themselves as pro-free market libertarians. Even though Charles Koch clearly articulates his views to the press, e.g., in the Marketplace interview below, lefties look to Jane Meyer's book where they read what Meyer's thinks Koch brothers stand on exactly the same issues -- aided by endless insinuations!!
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/10/21/business/corner-office/full-inter...
The level of group-think among lefties is comparable to those among the Brietbartians. Is it any wonder that we got Trump for President?
8
The appropriate scope for the administrative state is about as foundational a topic as one might put forth. I don't mind an article that puts of record that the person someone in the Trump administration chose for the post has in her background clerking for Clarence Thomas and hero worship for Antonin Scalia. Given those facts, a predictive approach to her future performance seems quite credible. As a one-time admirer of Scalia, I guess I'm just right there in your liberal media bubble.
By the way, you might want to hold the Koch brothers to a higher level of scrutiny than simple acceptance of their own description.
By the way, you might want to hold the Koch brothers to a higher level of scrutiny than simple acceptance of their own description.
1
Skepticism directed to any appointed public official is warranted, whether appointed by Trump or Obama. Personally, I am not a fan of Scalia and even less of Thomas. However, I do not dismiss out of hand all opinions of folks with whom I may disagree on some issues. Else I would cease to question my own views and learn the value of looking a issue from all angles. My beef is with the Talibanesque zeal of the left-liberal in condemning the people whose views they disagree with.
On the issue of the Koch brothers, no one's expecting "simple acceptance of their own description". My point was the Meyer in her book implies that public is unaware of the stance of the Koch brothers on various issues and her research was needed to shine light into the "dark pools". In reality, Charles Koch clearly states their position on pretty much all key issues, and those positions are pretty consistent. If there is discrepancy between his words and his actions, those should be objectively pointed out. Personally, I'd agree with 70% of his views, but would vehemently disagree with 15-20%. The fear of the Koch brothers among the left-liberal is fascinating to me. New Yorker had a nice cartoon on it:
http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a18266
On the issue of the Koch brothers, no one's expecting "simple acceptance of their own description". My point was the Meyer in her book implies that public is unaware of the stance of the Koch brothers on various issues and her research was needed to shine light into the "dark pools". In reality, Charles Koch clearly states their position on pretty much all key issues, and those positions are pretty consistent. If there is discrepancy between his words and his actions, those should be objectively pointed out. Personally, I'd agree with 70% of his views, but would vehemently disagree with 15-20%. The fear of the Koch brothers among the left-liberal is fascinating to me. New Yorker had a nice cartoon on it:
http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a18266
1
@Ajit:
Thanks for two outstanding comments... Kudos to you...
Thanks for two outstanding comments... Kudos to you...
If you admired and learned from Justices Scalia and Thomas, that alone disqualifies her as being good for America
9
Partisanship like that is bad for America. Working with esteemed justices more than qualifiers here, even their views differ from yours.
2
"...adding that Mr. Koch has not exerted any influence over the center."
$30 million, but no influence. Sounds exactly like Mr. Koch, not purchasing lawmakers again.
$30 million, but no influence. Sounds exactly like Mr. Koch, not purchasing lawmakers again.
8
"Maybe Neomi will surprise us,” says a Clinton-era OIRA administrator. We've seen this movie many times. While liberals hope for the best, conservatives organize to get their agenda in place using any means necessary.
13
Better put they keep their promises by whatever legal means possible. Any means necessary would be many opponents in the media well not being here any more.
The Trump administration has been all hot on rolling back high profile regulations, such as put out by the EPA etc. But those are not the real problems that stifle the economy. It's basically showboating to please his base while having little long term effect.
The real issue is the millions of laws (both federal and local) put in place over the past 150 years that have not kept up with technology and other changes. These include everything from the hugely outdated farm and commodity laws (such as wool and mohair subsidies), to having to file meaningless forms that have not been relevant for decades. The effect of each is rather small, but there are thousands of such examples, and it all adds up to a bureaucratic swamp.
The real issue is the millions of laws (both federal and local) put in place over the past 150 years that have not kept up with technology and other changes. These include everything from the hugely outdated farm and commodity laws (such as wool and mohair subsidies), to having to file meaningless forms that have not been relevant for decades. The effect of each is rather small, but there are thousands of such examples, and it all adds up to a bureaucratic swamp.
7
I agree but if you greatly reduce the resources for these agencies and insist on them focusing on real issues that can be addressed. I wonder about say the civil rights division over at justice, surely civil rights (traditional ones) are much better than say in 1960, so there should be much fewer resources there in fact a division might not be needed at all eliminating layers of management. This is what business does because keeping things the same creates bankruptcy.
1
How reassuring that "non-monetary benefits, to health and the environment, for example, 'can play a role.'” Two responses: (1) One would think that they would be of utmost importance, far outweighing any so-called monetary considerations. (2) In fact, health and the environment clearly have monetary benefits. To characterize them as "non-monetary" is simply a matter of studied ignorance and a way of diminishing their obvious importance. This person apparently is a Koch disciple, elevating money over lives.
15
Because of the march of technological innovation necessary to sustain our civilization and maintain our population in health and relative happiness, the very concept of regulatory and administrative law needs to be transformed into a continuous monitoring process that surveys relevant service domains with just the right balance between restricting potentially dangerous outcomes and allowing creative market forces to freely operate. This is an area where computer learning algorithms and satisficing algorithms can make all the difference between mindless obstructionism and laissez-faire free booting.
2
So Doctor Jobe, you mind telling us what is really on your mind?
Or, is this techo-medical babble about the "continuous monitoring process" about "relevant service domains" just your way of endorsing the GOP rush to make healthcare in our country even more draconian?
Or, is this techo-medical babble about the "continuous monitoring process" about "relevant service domains" just your way of endorsing the GOP rush to make healthcare in our country even more draconian?
1
There is obviously a lot of legal nonsense in many of these regulations, and yes it would be great to have a government that functions with some level of clarity and cooperation, but I am confused by the anti-regulation argument. We need to decide whether we want to live in a society where we care about our citizens or not. This costs some money, and requires resting power from groups with a louder voice. Clearly deregulation profits corporate business and hurts citizens. Naomi Rao seems like an intelligent capable person- and who knows what she will actually do in her new position at the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (talk about orwell)- however to me, the quiet academically reinforced certainty of an intellectual in a position of power seems potentially more destructive than the bumbling narcissism of her boss.
8
At what level of care should be pay for? I want a tesla self driving car how about the government get me one.
3
Zealotry with a façade of academic acumen is even more dangerous than plain outright zealotry. The former can think, formulate, and thus dissemble.
16
The working class complains. I want to complain about how elite college educated workers (the lower part of the top 20%) are abused by their employers.
Elite workers are not allowed to join unions. Join a union and it is good bye job. Get sick and miss too much work (six weeks), and it is good bye job. Overtime? What's that? Elite workers sometimes work 80, 90, 100 hours a week for months with no overtime pay because we are get a salary and we end up selling our soul for that salary. Elite workers have laptops; so they are expected to always be on call. They work weekends.They work evenings after dinner from home.They are expected to work remotely while on vacations. They work on holidays. They work while assigned to jury duty. If you are a so-called elite worker for a company, you have zero job security.
Elite workers are not allowed to join unions. Join a union and it is good bye job. Get sick and miss too much work (six weeks), and it is good bye job. Overtime? What's that? Elite workers sometimes work 80, 90, 100 hours a week for months with no overtime pay because we are get a salary and we end up selling our soul for that salary. Elite workers have laptops; so they are expected to always be on call. They work weekends.They work evenings after dinner from home.They are expected to work remotely while on vacations. They work on holidays. They work while assigned to jury duty. If you are a so-called elite worker for a company, you have zero job security.
8
Come now any group of workers can join a union, elite ones don't want a union since it can be a corrupt influence and being valuable themselves they don't need anybody to get them compensation. I have done some of what you indicate but not because I had to but because I wanted to make sure my job was done properly while I was away or at home.
1
I see where there will no longer be information coming out of this office!
6
Will this appointment replace the Office of Government Ethics?
4
Regulations = Protections
Let's take back the framing of the debate and call 'burdensome regulations' what they are i.e. 'needed protections' for the well-being (both economic and physical, and safety of people, animals and the environment.
I recommend reading the thoughts of cognitive linguist George Lakoff on this subject.
Let's take back the framing of the debate and call 'burdensome regulations' what they are i.e. 'needed protections' for the well-being (both economic and physical, and safety of people, animals and the environment.
I recommend reading the thoughts of cognitive linguist George Lakoff on this subject.
5
If you need a cognitive linguist to tell you what is valuable I doubt you understand process.
1
I take away the following.
I' m much more worried about the agendas of "dark money" funneled through the Koch Foundation, all subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. That the OIRA will shortly be more like the Office of DisInformation and IrRegular Affairs. That seemingly with a "straight face", academics can say they take tens of millions of dollars for their institution and it's affiliated centers, but the donors have no influence.
And I see no surprises - not now or in the future of the state of this administration.
I' m much more worried about the agendas of "dark money" funneled through the Koch Foundation, all subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. That the OIRA will shortly be more like the Office of DisInformation and IrRegular Affairs. That seemingly with a "straight face", academics can say they take tens of millions of dollars for their institution and it's affiliated centers, but the donors have no influence.
And I see no surprises - not now or in the future of the state of this administration.
11
Our environment is a living biological organism that, to maintain it's health, cannot be dealt with using a cost/benefit analysis.
8
Sure it can, you just have to estimate the benefits correctly. How much is a potential life worth? To their family it is infinite so we would spend whatever to save every life. That would not work, so we look at their potential earnings and discount them or some other fairly objective criteria.
3
Seriously, does anyone believe that when Charles Koch funds an entity, that he's looking for a dispassionate, objective analysis of what's in the nation's best interests?
29
Yes, I do. I don't think Charles Koch, from what I've seen, has some devious plot against America. He's a libertarian, and believes in preserving freedom here in America - the freedom that you enjoy daily.
5
The Kochs are celebrating that 25 million will lose health insurance.
Where will they be when the revolution starts after people start dying in the streets?
Where will they be when the revolution starts after people start dying in the streets?
2
Rather surprised to see 'health and the environment' mentioned as distinct from economic factors. Harm to either costs money--lots of it, often.
10
I worked for nearly 30 years in building code enforcement and I can tell you that much if not most of regulation is reactionary; that is, in response to some perceived need, usually some sort of disaster. In fact, building codes came into widespread use in America largely as a response to the Iriquois Theater fire in Chicago in 1903, where over 600 people died, and the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in NYC, where 146 people died. The Glass-Steagall banking act was in response to the 1919 financial meltdown.
The part of regulation that is not reactionary consists mostly of industry trying to game the system in their favor or against their competitors.
One thing that I have noticed with regulations: the maximum becomes the minimum and the minimum becomes the maximum. For example, using building codes as an example again, the code states a guardrail on a balcony shall be at least 42 inches high. No contractor ever builds a guardrail that is 42.5 inches high; many are built that are 41.75 inches high. Dead end corridors in office buildings are allowed to be a maximum of 20 ft long. Rarely are they shorter; frequently they are slightly longer.
The idea that regulation is inherently excessive or burdensome seems to be purely economic. I for one am willing to pay a little more for safe buildings, safe food, safe transportation, etc. Oversight of regulations should concentrate on the industry gamesmanship and backstabbing that is so prevalent and of no benefit to the public.
The part of regulation that is not reactionary consists mostly of industry trying to game the system in their favor or against their competitors.
One thing that I have noticed with regulations: the maximum becomes the minimum and the minimum becomes the maximum. For example, using building codes as an example again, the code states a guardrail on a balcony shall be at least 42 inches high. No contractor ever builds a guardrail that is 42.5 inches high; many are built that are 41.75 inches high. Dead end corridors in office buildings are allowed to be a maximum of 20 ft long. Rarely are they shorter; frequently they are slightly longer.
The idea that regulation is inherently excessive or burdensome seems to be purely economic. I for one am willing to pay a little more for safe buildings, safe food, safe transportation, etc. Oversight of regulations should concentrate on the industry gamesmanship and backstabbing that is so prevalent and of no benefit to the public.
31
Thank you so much for saying this clearly.
The building codes for NYC are some of the most infamous, and many simply make no sense at all in today's world (many made no sense when they were put into place). It is well knows that many of them were enacted as "favors" to politicians, and in some cases even to the mafia. NYC is hardly the only one, just the biggest.
3
I don't see anything in her background that would giver her the expertise and knowledge to repeal environmental, health or safety-related regulations the reason for which has been discussed, debated and supported by experts in the field -- nothing wrong with streamlining but there has to be valid reasons for eliminating regulations -- also this cost benefit analysis -- my understanding is that this is already done in respect of draft regulations so what would she be adding to this analysis? It seems to me that appointing a clearly partisan head for this organization indicates a cost-cutting exercise - period.
14
Check the assumptions, give me control of them and I can support anything you want. Sort of how the OMB was massively incorrect about the ACA.
1
"The daughter of immigrant doctors from India"
A good reminder that a lot of the immigrants from India in the United States came from the upper strata (or caste) of that country's deeply hierarchical and socially stratified environment--and are therefore hardcore reactionaries on numerous economic and regulatory issues.
A good reminder that a lot of the immigrants from India in the United States came from the upper strata (or caste) of that country's deeply hierarchical and socially stratified environment--and are therefore hardcore reactionaries on numerous economic and regulatory issues.
31
Something that one of my college professors said to me is that the caste system in India is one of the oldest racist systems in the world.
Which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the one-percenters in Indian society or its emigrants that come from a societal strata who may likely view that social and economic justice is not a critical imperative to make American society function properly.
Which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the one-percenters in Indian society or its emigrants that come from a societal strata who may likely view that social and economic justice is not a critical imperative to make American society function properly.
1
But as a liberal you are supposed to love and not attack minorities.
2
Reactionary? Who talks like this in 2017, other than a Marxist-Leninist emerging from a time warp?
2
To all advocates of more regulation, please read the 2,300 pages of "legislation" known as Dodd-Frank. Then read the hundreds of thousands (so I have been told) pages that have been (and will be drafted) to administer and execute.
No one can believe such massive missives of lawyering can possibly yield the vibrant, solvent, and ethical financial system that is needed to provide required and desirable financial services.
No one can believe such massive missives of lawyering can possibly yield the vibrant, solvent, and ethical financial system that is needed to provide required and desirable financial services.
9
It all depends on who's doing the lawyering, wouldn't you say? Legal interpretation is always colored by personal belief. Deciding which rules are "burdensome", and which are not depends on many factors, particularly when the decision-making is funded by billionaires with an agenda.
17
You missed the point. This law--and many others--remains incomprehensible. Thus, regulation becomes a feel good mantra--as it has become--rather than effective policy at a reasonable cost.
4
Amazingly enough we had a time before Dodd Frank. How did that work out? I am not saying Dodd Frank is the answer but either is bank self regulation. We could get rid of a lot of regulation if we were willing to create hard and fast limits. For example Dodd Frank focuses a lot on banks that are so large as to pose systemic risk. A law that limited how large banks could be would dampen any systemic risk and eliminate a lot of regulations but of course this is politically impossible. Also making it easier to sue the individuals who run the institutions for malpractice might be something worth exploring. Removing incentives for bad behavior( claw backs, jail time, delayed bonuses) rather than regulation could be productive.
I am greatly alarmed after following this link from the article, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=653363. Here we can read abstracts and full articles that Rao has written. In many of them she challenges the very nature of Human Dignity as a basis of argument in civil rights cases. I have no law training, but as I understand several of these arguments, Rao believes that the courts should consider only individual rights, and that there are no rights because of one's membership in a group. This means that racial prejudice and the treatment of women as inferior beings might be perfectly ok if the individual person is treated equally under the law. Am I just too liberal, or is there deep, dark mischief here?
31
You're too liberal/progressive. Group vs. individual rights is exactly what Orwell was talking about when he wrote the phrase "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Under the law, one should neither gain nor lose rights by virtue of being a member of a group.
4
So, are you saying that treating individuals equally is potentially racist or prejudicial? If that is the case, then there is no such thing as rights for anyone.
2
So if you have an individual right why do you need a group right? For example discrimination in many forms of employment is illegal, it is an individual right, it only comes to groups when discrimination is applied by groups, the right is still individual, at least that is my limited understanding.
1
A law, in my opinion, takes two actions. 1 Authorization, 2. Appropriation.
An aunhorization without appropriation is merely a suggestion. Executive Order 12866 and the idea of externalities is central to the understanding of legislation from the Legislative Branch and regulation from the Executive Branch. Rgulation by the Executive Branch does take some sort of legislative action on the part of the legislature. If the Legislative Branch fails to legislate, the Executive Branch steps up and regulates by expanding on what the legislature has approved for the executife.
Is law made from the bench? When legislatures fail to legislate, yes.
Is what a judge finds important? Yes, that is why we have judges. Are judges always impartial? No. Roger?
An aunhorization without appropriation is merely a suggestion. Executive Order 12866 and the idea of externalities is central to the understanding of legislation from the Legislative Branch and regulation from the Executive Branch. Rgulation by the Executive Branch does take some sort of legislative action on the part of the legislature. If the Legislative Branch fails to legislate, the Executive Branch steps up and regulates by expanding on what the legislature has approved for the executife.
Is law made from the bench? When legislatures fail to legislate, yes.
Is what a judge finds important? Yes, that is why we have judges. Are judges always impartial? No. Roger?
1
No, this is not correct. Judges cannot and must never be allowed to legislate from the bench. Not ever. Judges must uphold the law, nothing more or less. If a judge wants to legislate, he/she should become a legislator.
3
Warren Buffet talks about three I phases. Innovation, improvement and idiots. Carter innovated, Clinton improved. Who gets the last I?
Judges are not meant to be, nor should they ever presume to be, members of some sort of "super legislative" branch of government. That is simply not their constitutional function... And we've had far too much of that sort of activism.
2
I'm actually in favor of regulations. I don't know how we got to the point where regulations are such a "boogeyman". I want businesses that pollute to be regulated. I want products that are unsafe to be regulated. I want coal mines who find it more expedient to dump their waste into nearby streams to be regulated, This woman seems like a disaster to me. Anyone who's associated with the Koch brothers is no friend of regulations. No friend of the people. Only a friend to bug business which wants to do anything it can to make more money--regulations be damned. Rao should be ashamed of her contribution to this country.
42
Actually, regulations should impact and are important. But we no longer have legislators that are capable or willing to create purposeful regulations. They write 2000 page + documents (actually, the staffers and lobbyists write them) and then another agency is put in charge of implementing them. Well, with 2000+ pages, you might imagine the implementation. Agencies see big budget winfalls with this type of nonsense.
And that is the problem. Not the idea of regulating, it's the output of regulations over the last 30 years as Congress eagerly grows the budget and spends money on items that are not even related to their windbag legislation.
I've worked in DC, and know from whence I speak. Few in DC are willing to back away from this spending spree and the inefficiencies of our expanded government. When you are asked to do 100 things, even though a regulation only touches 5, is anything ever done successfully? Nope.
And that is the problem. Not the idea of regulating, it's the output of regulations over the last 30 years as Congress eagerly grows the budget and spends money on items that are not even related to their windbag legislation.
I've worked in DC, and know from whence I speak. Few in DC are willing to back away from this spending spree and the inefficiencies of our expanded government. When you are asked to do 100 things, even though a regulation only touches 5, is anything ever done successfully? Nope.
17
Forgive me if I don't take the word of a person who doesn't even know that legislators and their staff have nothing to do with writing regulations except that they decide to write the laws in such a way that they need regulations for anyone to know how to comply with them.
1
Yes, George Mason U. has developed quite a reputation for being a hotbed of conservative/libertarian ideologues.
11
Well, it's not as though it's at Harvard.
2
This woman seems to bear careful scrutiny. It's interesting that she's got an insider position in "woman exploiter" Donald Trump's inner circle, too.
4
Try reading the history of the American Constitution. Ms. Rao is well within bounds of that document. The Dems have been destroying the Constitution for the past 60 years. Executive mandates are the Achilles heal of freedom. Just ask the Brits about the abuses of King James I and James II.
6
all hail the corporate welfare state -
So the Stuart monarchy's returning? Kingship actually worked out quite well for civilized Canada in that regard (though I am sure they consider themselves terribly "unfree"), whereas as we only have the "king" of reality TV as our chief exec.
Brought in by Trump/Bannon, floated by Koch. Biggest warning sign ever!
22
It gets harder and harder to read the news without gagging on the intellectual deceit and linguistic gymnastics of these new order apparatchiks. "...dignity under the law is best derived from freedom and individualism, not government intervention."
Is Rao referring to the dignity under the law in slavery? Or denial of universal suffrage? Or child labor? Orwell's "Animal Farm" is a warning, not a blueprint.
Is Rao referring to the dignity under the law in slavery? Or denial of universal suffrage? Or child labor? Orwell's "Animal Farm" is a warning, not a blueprint.
26
Both of those problems were solved by legislative actions, not agency regulations.
It is the job of the legislature to make the rules; that is why we vote for them. The agencies should have two functions; to determine if individuals, corporate or otherwise, are violating the ruled laid down by the legislature; and to propose additional rules to the legislature, who will either approve or disapprove of them.
It is the job of the legislature to make the rules; that is why we vote for them. The agencies should have two functions; to determine if individuals, corporate or otherwise, are violating the ruled laid down by the legislature; and to propose additional rules to the legislature, who will either approve or disapprove of them.
4
Any friend of the Koch Bros. is a friend of justice, freedom, and the American Way. Just kidding.
11
President Trump continues to plow under the Left. The man you disrespect as stupid, incompetent, unqualified is eating your lunch
9
No he's stealing it, poisoning it and then handing it back to us with that creepy smile of his face.
2
#1 problem with this appointment: she's an attorney, not an economist; and she's likely not trained in systems thinking. As an attorney, I can tell you that without further training on systems thinking and true "cost / benefit analysis," a classically trained, "policy guru" attorney is not well equipped to assess regulation value. She'll be able to parse each and every word of the regulation with fine precision, but she won't understand the larger picture that is critical in the end. Instead, she'll use the frame given to her by the Chamber of Commerce, Koch Brothers, and Republicans/Teapublicans. And that just means that only the rich should expect to benefit, not the 99% or the environment on which we depend for life.
#2 problem: She's indoctrinated in the Koch toxic kool-aid. Since 2005, the Koch Foundation has spread its cancerous tentacles from a handful of universities to now more than 250 universities (and growing) with some version of "freedom" institute or--like in George Mason's case--a "center for the study of…" FILL IN THE BLANK with something benefiting the 1%. These Koch-funded "centers" at these universities have the explicit intent to exponentially grow the number of PhDs/JDs/etc. indoctrinated and preaching Libertarian/Tea Party "deconstruction of the administrative state"…which, of course, destroys the protections for the 99% and perpetuates the current vast wealth inequality. www.unkochmycampus.org
This isn't democracy; it's a hostile takeover.
#2 problem: She's indoctrinated in the Koch toxic kool-aid. Since 2005, the Koch Foundation has spread its cancerous tentacles from a handful of universities to now more than 250 universities (and growing) with some version of "freedom" institute or--like in George Mason's case--a "center for the study of…" FILL IN THE BLANK with something benefiting the 1%. These Koch-funded "centers" at these universities have the explicit intent to exponentially grow the number of PhDs/JDs/etc. indoctrinated and preaching Libertarian/Tea Party "deconstruction of the administrative state"…which, of course, destroys the protections for the 99% and perpetuates the current vast wealth inequality. www.unkochmycampus.org
This isn't democracy; it's a hostile takeover.
63
Yes, when I hear the name Koch, I think of a killer giant squid- tentacles everywhere crushing the life out of our democratic institutions. And for what? So Charles, et. al. can own more and more and more. The lady will do we the people NO favors.
1
As an attorney, you are certainly pushing a lot of facks that are not in evidence.
It's generous of you to suggest that there should be a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to regulations, but that is not the GOP policy. The only adjective suitable to describe regulations is "burdensome". Any burden on business must be removed - there is no excuse for such a thing. We don't need any kind of analysis to know which regulations to eliminate. Just start chucking them into the dumpster like garbage. If this sounds deranged to you, welcome to the contemporary conservative mind.
2
What a joke!
Another highly formally credentialed peon for the white conservative establishment. Much like Distort D'Newza.
Does Ms. Rao even realize that by Scalia's interpretation, she and her parents and other Indian immigrants would likely be considered less than?
Cans she explain how she believes that the Citizens United decision by the right wingers on the SCOTUS is line with "the rule of law should prevail over the rule of what the judge thinks is best?"
Hypocrisy and a craven lust for power. A shame really and a yuuuge disappointment. Sad!
Another highly formally credentialed peon for the white conservative establishment. Much like Distort D'Newza.
Does Ms. Rao even realize that by Scalia's interpretation, she and her parents and other Indian immigrants would likely be considered less than?
Cans she explain how she believes that the Citizens United decision by the right wingers on the SCOTUS is line with "the rule of law should prevail over the rule of what the judge thinks is best?"
Hypocrisy and a craven lust for power. A shame really and a yuuuge disappointment. Sad!
25
Such respect for an ideologue funded by people who can afford to live and create an unreality for the rest of us to live by. A self reinforcing virus of Grifter death money. What a country.
30
We're at the point where we're hunting for the needles (of hope) in the haystack of this administration.
That's what this article reads like.
That's what this article reads like.
11
Yep, that's the way the article reads.
Mr. Eder
Thank you so much for making your bias at least a little plainer than usual.
Statements like "Mr. Trump has issued a series of executive orders mandating a reduction of regulatory burdens on everyone from bankers and energy companies to small businesses and farmers" offer clear enough hints.
But when you toss them off as well accepted facts, without a hint of context or explanation, it demonstrates the depths you people have sunk to in your unwillingness to engage in critical thinking or exploration.
It's still drink the Kool-Aid time on the Right.
To explore, for a moment:
"Regulatory burdens"? Why do you suppose they are there? Because, maybe "bankers and energy companies...small businesses and farmers" ignore the commonweal in their single-minded drive for profit and advantage?
Don't deny it; t's the one thing we agree on. Business exists to make money, period. Your team seems to think anything done in that pursuit is just fine. I tend to think I'd like to have clean water to drink, even if it is heavily filtered and doubly chlorinated.
These burdens, these onerous regulations (most of which consist of filing a form every time you misbehave) are written in response to bad behavior by business entities.
Business itself, by it's abusive behavior, creates the need for regulation. Unless you want to live in a corporate state, where life is controlled by mindless profit centers, you must acknowledge the importance of meaningful regulation.
Thank you so much for making your bias at least a little plainer than usual.
Statements like "Mr. Trump has issued a series of executive orders mandating a reduction of regulatory burdens on everyone from bankers and energy companies to small businesses and farmers" offer clear enough hints.
But when you toss them off as well accepted facts, without a hint of context or explanation, it demonstrates the depths you people have sunk to in your unwillingness to engage in critical thinking or exploration.
It's still drink the Kool-Aid time on the Right.
To explore, for a moment:
"Regulatory burdens"? Why do you suppose they are there? Because, maybe "bankers and energy companies...small businesses and farmers" ignore the commonweal in their single-minded drive for profit and advantage?
Don't deny it; t's the one thing we agree on. Business exists to make money, period. Your team seems to think anything done in that pursuit is just fine. I tend to think I'd like to have clean water to drink, even if it is heavily filtered and doubly chlorinated.
These burdens, these onerous regulations (most of which consist of filing a form every time you misbehave) are written in response to bad behavior by business entities.
Business itself, by it's abusive behavior, creates the need for regulation. Unless you want to live in a corporate state, where life is controlled by mindless profit centers, you must acknowledge the importance of meaningful regulation.
134
oogada, why did you close with the term "MEANINGFUL regulation"? Are you implying that there are regulations that are NOT meaningful? How could that be? Why don't you demonstrate your critical thinking facility and explore the ramifications of the distinctions among meaningful and un-meaningful regulations?
2
"Mr. Koch has not exerted any influence over the (Ms Rao's) center."
Yes, Mr Koch publicly contributed 10 million to this center and likely was the anonymous 20 million contributor but had no interest in influencing it. And the Cato institute pursues an agenda independent of Charles' views and the 10's of millions he contributes to congress is only about filling it with competent and independent people.
Also, Trump never lies.
Yes, Mr Koch publicly contributed 10 million to this center and likely was the anonymous 20 million contributor but had no interest in influencing it. And the Cato institute pursues an agenda independent of Charles' views and the 10's of millions he contributes to congress is only about filling it with competent and independent people.
Also, Trump never lies.
18
Will Carl Icahn be giving Ms. Rao advice on which regulations need change so he has an inside track with his stock trading? He has been called an unofficial adviser to djt on regulations. The fox guarding the hen house....
7
When St. Ronnie came to office, he wanted to eliminate the EPA. However, the CEOs of major chemical companies had a sit-down with him and explained that they needed the EPA. Without EPA established standards, even if they disagreed, the tort lawyers would take over and juries would decide on the standards. They did not like that idea and convinced the President to back off. So he satiated his needs by removing the solar panels from the roof of the White House.
"Killing two regs for each new reg" sounds simple enough. The U.K. has that law and regulators look for low fruit to eliminate. Regulations for building materials was an area that they chose to eliminate. That didn't work out so well, did it? Of course it is dramatic when 80 people die in a conflagration that would have been prevented by the previous regulations. Will anyone notice if thousands slowly die, one here-one there, due to elimination of regulations on an air pollutant. Especially, if the CDC is gutted and there is no data collection?
"Killing two regs for each new reg" sounds simple enough. The U.K. has that law and regulators look for low fruit to eliminate. Regulations for building materials was an area that they chose to eliminate. That didn't work out so well, did it? Of course it is dramatic when 80 people die in a conflagration that would have been prevented by the previous regulations. Will anyone notice if thousands slowly die, one here-one there, due to elimination of regulations on an air pollutant. Especially, if the CDC is gutted and there is no data collection?
19
The fact that we are accepting all of these changes means we agree that the 2016 election result was free and fair and the will of the American people.
How can we go forward without Trump's tax returns, actual health status and the outcome of an extremely serious investigation into treason with our enemy?
The Koch brothers' money worsens the situation. They have so much to gain from further deregulation.
How can we go forward without Trump's tax returns, actual health status and the outcome of an extremely serious investigation into treason with our enemy?
The Koch brothers' money worsens the situation. They have so much to gain from further deregulation.
12
Though they were longtime friends, it's deeply disturbing that Justice Ginsburg approved of the renaming of the school given the Koch family money behind it.
6
When told that all the tweets and Russia stuff is a distraction people ask me "from what?" Well, the complete disruption of the regulatory process in the name of profits. That's what. There is a law currently going through Congress that will require that all regulations be passed by Congress. As if they have the time and expertise to do so. Look out, nothing is going to be safe soon.
13
One further thought. Regulation is all pervasive at the federal and state levels. I defy anyone to name even one individual or business activity that is not subject to some type of regulation. Again, much regulation furthers a legitimate public interest but many regulations, both state and federal, either make no sense or go beyond what is needed.
At both the state and federal levels, many regulations simply exist to generate fees for the government.
At both the state and federal levels, many regulations simply exist to generate fees for the government.
7
Fees for the government and jobs for the regulators.
1
No surprises; Naomi represents Conservative America, whose goal is to let the private sector to replace government "intrusion". Although many conservatives don't believe in evolution, their political strategy is survival of the fittest. Wealth, provides the means of their rule, so keeping that wealth, which drives its agenda, in private hands is critical. They've hijacked Christian America and nativists with their opposition to internationalism, secularism and PC. They've been so effective they've got these voters who will be harmed worst by the GOP's mission of Reverse Robin Hood lining up to drain the swamp. Father forgive them for they know not of what they do. I only wish we had such effective message deliverers in progressive America. Wait. We do. But the Party Machine found him to be w/o the proper Democrat bono fides. Can you spell Bernie?
12
"But the Party Machine found him to be w/o the proper Democrat bono fides. Can you spell Bernie?"
The Party Machine did no such thing. Bernie ran as a Democrat after being a life long Independent which he is again. The Party Machine did not stop him, the voters in the Democratic Primaries did. They gave Hillary millions more votes.
The Party Machine did no such thing. Bernie ran as a Democrat after being a life long Independent which he is again. The Party Machine did not stop him, the voters in the Democratic Primaries did. They gave Hillary millions more votes.
10
Bernie didn't stand a fighting chance of HRC's pack of Party controllers who weren't about to allow someone w/o proper Party bono-fides stop the "It's Her Time" train, which ultimately derailed, but with Tom Perez as the Party chiefton, it's doubtful the Party will allow fresh, new ideas,.... worse, there could even be a strengthening of the Party of The Rich in the Midterms.
For some time I, as a lawyer practicing administrative law for some 40 years, have thought that law schools have not appreciated the importance of administrative law and the administrative state. Everything we do is regulated. Barbers, automobiles, plants and agriculture, and anything else one can think of. It is not that regulation is bad, but often it goes overboard, sweeping the wheat with the chaff.
I am glad to see that at least one law school has finally figured out that legal education about the administrative state is equally as important as torts, contracts (often themselves regulated), and constitutional law, which often intersects with regulatory law.
I don't care a whit whether George Mason is renamed after Scalia or Ginsberg. The administrative state needs a hard look.
I am glad to see that at least one law school has finally figured out that legal education about the administrative state is equally as important as torts, contracts (often themselves regulated), and constitutional law, which often intersects with regulatory law.
I don't care a whit whether George Mason is renamed after Scalia or Ginsberg. The administrative state needs a hard look.
15
I'm continually fascinated by the conservative views that everything going on out in the "real world", other then our military-industrial-intelligence complex, and control of a woman's body - the Govt should be hands-off. All while history shows that leaving businesses (for example) to their own devices results in all sorts of abuses. That there is no such thing as a moral/ethical core, acting as such, within the business world, and its vast and complicated goings-on. That without intervention from - well the only interventionist we have - the Govt, there would not be any employee protections, let alone any other employer controls. Shifts would be whatever any manager at any time invented for his/her needs. Pay rates would all over the place. And providing health care insurance - forget about it!
The courts, pre-regulations, were notorious for not supporting employees harmed by negligent employers. And still today the efforts needed to prove harm by an employer can be insurmountable unless a large class action suit is brought...and that's no easy path either.
And trying to prove a corporate polluters "neighborly" harm to a community...even when their effluent is a known highly toxic waste, is like proving the earth revolves around the sun to a group of kindergartners. Coal mining toxic waste dumping into local rivers, etc, is one such example, among thousands.
Its astounding how conservatives are so blind to historical reality.
The courts, pre-regulations, were notorious for not supporting employees harmed by negligent employers. And still today the efforts needed to prove harm by an employer can be insurmountable unless a large class action suit is brought...and that's no easy path either.
And trying to prove a corporate polluters "neighborly" harm to a community...even when their effluent is a known highly toxic waste, is like proving the earth revolves around the sun to a group of kindergartners. Coal mining toxic waste dumping into local rivers, etc, is one such example, among thousands.
Its astounding how conservatives are so blind to historical reality.
56
So Professor Rau benefits from major Koch contributions, is an unfettered fan of the late Justice Scalia is a darling of right wing think tanks, what's to worry about? That she might "consider" the benefits of regulation in her assessments is... so enlightened. Can't figure why her appointment worries me.
28
Will the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs have any power over the Oval Office of Disinformation and Deregulatory Affairs?
14
I fear the "repeal and replace" mentality, with repeal now and replace at some unspecified time in the future, will become the guiding principle. The outcome will be weighted by the cost to business giving less than equal consideration to the impact on the health and protection of ordinary citizens.
10
Rao: "In our constitutional democracy, the rule of law should prevail over the rule of what the judge thinks is best.'" Such a simpleminded analysis can only be the product of decades of Scalia-worship.
"What the judge thinks is best" is what the Founders thought was best when they left law to the interpretation of the judiciary - those best qualified to interpret it.
"What the judge thinks is best" is what the Founders thought was best when they left law to the interpretation of the judiciary - those best qualified to interpret it.
23
Correct. But the analysis is worse than "simpleminded": it's propagandistic, and should be labeled as such. Otherwise, it infiltrates and corrupts normal people's thought processes (which is its intention).
4
It's quite simple. Anyone who desires to serve this corrupt, lying administration should be considered suspect. The fact that her work has been financed by enemies of government like the Koch's, and that she supports politically motivated activist judges like Scalia and Thomas, underscores this.
112
Academic hack from the backwaters of George Mason law school. Gets funding from the Koch industry and turns herself loose on all that is good about societal protections. I guess you could call that a good career move. Sad.
21
And the Democrats will be just as watchful with their own scholars...thank goodness!!
Translation of the headline: "Trump tries to inflict his brand of tyranny on America"....
FAT CHANCE!!!
Translation of the headline: "Trump tries to inflict his brand of tyranny on America"....
FAT CHANCE!!!
2
How can we allow minority elected fraud liar-in-chief to make such drastic changes w/o any oversight and collaboration with people he is supposed to serve?
This is called fascist take over of Democracy(semi) by Corporates.
This is called fascist take over of Democracy(semi) by Corporates.
13
Ms Rao will remove so many regulations that every town will have its very own love canal. We will all drink lead and have asthma but no public education or healthcare. They will not stop until our air and water are as dirty as Beijing or Mumbai. And you should know that those places are trying to clean themselves up so our foray into climate denial will speed the process up nicely.
22
Steve
You're wrong, and willfully wrong.
Neomi Rao is not a scholar, she is a politician. She wins arguments by schmooze and guile, not study and evidence.
She is not there for "helping the Trump administration stay within the law",
as is that was even a thing.
Her inclination, her job, and the responsibilities of her new office indicate clearly she is there to provide administrative cover, and to finish the well-begun Trump policy of destroying, hiding, perverting research and data paid for by taxpayers and despised by Trump
She's the one to provide a buffer between an outraged public and the EPA administrator too busy to care about the demand for reliable information, and unwilling to provide it anyway.
She's the one who will bring scholarly gravitas to testimony abut why the government prefers to remain ignorant about the impact of guns on our bloody society.
Cost of crushing the healthcare system? Don't bother to ask Neomi, all she can do is tell you why those data are no longer available, and why that 's probably a good thing.
Neomi Rao, 'scholar', is there solely to oversee our final approach to national stupidity.
You're wrong, and willfully wrong.
Neomi Rao is not a scholar, she is a politician. She wins arguments by schmooze and guile, not study and evidence.
She is not there for "helping the Trump administration stay within the law",
as is that was even a thing.
Her inclination, her job, and the responsibilities of her new office indicate clearly she is there to provide administrative cover, and to finish the well-begun Trump policy of destroying, hiding, perverting research and data paid for by taxpayers and despised by Trump
She's the one to provide a buffer between an outraged public and the EPA administrator too busy to care about the demand for reliable information, and unwilling to provide it anyway.
She's the one who will bring scholarly gravitas to testimony abut why the government prefers to remain ignorant about the impact of guns on our bloody society.
Cost of crushing the healthcare system? Don't bother to ask Neomi, all she can do is tell you why those data are no longer available, and why that 's probably a good thing.
Neomi Rao, 'scholar', is there solely to oversee our final approach to national stupidity.
69
one of my favorite comments is: If it's broke it must be regulated. If it's not regulated it must be broke.
4
I think the ocean and fishing industry was broke when catch regulations were imposed.
Frightening! By the time Trump is finished, USA will be unrecognizable. Meanwhile, the earth continues to burn from climate change.
22
I said the same thing [not about climate change] a few days ago after reading a different article. It's so Great!
The world is burning?
1
It is time that NY Times reporters began investigating the influence of Koch money and strategy in manipulating politics in this country- here is a smoking gun- a hand picked disciple of their "libertarian" anti government agenda given a position of power to destroy any semblance of government power over business.
Please NY Times, don't wait until they achieve everything they want before you assign some reporters on the real story of the Republican agenda. Must Nancy Maclean fight alone against this multi-billion dollar Koch army?
Please NY Times, don't wait until they achieve everything they want before you assign some reporters on the real story of the Republican agenda. Must Nancy Maclean fight alone against this multi-billion dollar Koch army?
50
The investigation has already been done by Jane Mayer in her book Dark Money. The Koch's plan to legitimate right-wing ideas through the funding of academic centers is the strategy that has given us someone like Ms. Rao.
Warren Buffett — ‘There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.’
Warren Buffett — ‘There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.’
8
First Dark Money, but now Maclean's thoroughly researched book "Democracy in Chains" that fleshes out and documents the Koch bros' 3 decade program step by step. And it is not merely the rich against the rest of us, because most of the rich are not on-board with their extreme right-wing capitalistic "libertarianism". Their agenda is about destroying all populist based democracies and turning the world into a feudalistic system of entrepreneurial overlords. Capitalism unfettered by the constraints of the losers that represent the bulk of humanity.
It sounds crazy until you've read Maclean's book. Sometimes conspiracies are more than theoretical and sometimes when someone says, "the sky is falling" they are not crazy-eyed, delusional alarmists- and are just rational people sounding the alarm.
It sounds crazy until you've read Maclean's book. Sometimes conspiracies are more than theoretical and sometimes when someone says, "the sky is falling" they are not crazy-eyed, delusional alarmists- and are just rational people sounding the alarm.
Alan - most of the work has already been done; I highly recommend Nancy McLean's new book, "Democracy in Chains." She has researched deeply into the connections between a small group of "scholars" who wound up at George Mason, the Kochs, et.al. to explicitly design a plan to undermine the influence of democratic majorities in the political process. It's a compelling read.
1
Read Truthout article on Koch Bros, James Buchanan and George Mason University. The radical right plan is coming to fruition. Beware. Or pack your bags for Texas. The reality is frightening.
9
Credentials or not, the scholar Neomi Rao must have learned by now that Trump has already taken off Regulations' from the table. For a very smart, intelligent lady, how can she work with this Republican Administration? Oh. I get it. She is first a Republican.
13
The Koch family paid a lot of money to establish Ms. Rao in her position. I doubt she will "surprise us" in any way. The Koch's do not enjoy surprises.
110
I don't disagree with the the mission of OIRA, but just once I'd like to hear the press recognize that the vast majority of "regulations" are more accurately "protections". Think about that next time you take a breath, drink water, or eat food you didn't grow yourself.
82
'She is the founder of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason...'
A Bannon appointment to be sure. We need to continually remember who is pulling all the strings in the white house. And while Bannon is doing a bang-up job dismantaling the administrative state, presumably with no restraints, Big Don is taking up all the news cycles by being an amazingly useful idiot.
Don't forget who is really in charge and what his agenda is. More investigative journalism on Bannon is called for.
A Bannon appointment to be sure. We need to continually remember who is pulling all the strings in the white house. And while Bannon is doing a bang-up job dismantaling the administrative state, presumably with no restraints, Big Don is taking up all the news cycles by being an amazingly useful idiot.
Don't forget who is really in charge and what his agenda is. More investigative journalism on Bannon is called for.
88
How soon we forget! The article states that President Obama was "the most prolific authors of major regulations", but fails to note that he inherited a financial crisis the day he moved into the White House. In 2011, the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded, among other things, that the crisis of 2007-2008 was avoidable, and was caused by "widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision". A wide range of people and institutions are still hurting from the 2008 downturn, but most of the financial institutions and banks are doing just fine. 'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it'.
146
And notice how we have all more or less bought into the notion that "regulation" is a dirty word. We sense that Obama must be defended or excused in some way for having committed this terrible crime. The argument is over before it gets started in this kind of rhetorical environment.
1
Her past affiliations with Scalia, Thomas and Koch don't bode well when it comes to anticipating that her interests with be with the public, and not big business, when it comes to the role she will play in the adoption future regulations. I suppose a sense of duty could be an overriding factor in her willingness to join this administration but I can't help but question the motives and good sense of anyone who would associate themselves with this president without the inducement of blackmail or a threat of bodily harm.
29
I think many people, apparently our president included, are confused about a lot of the the regulations. my experience is a lot of them are clarifications of the law, not making new law. While it is always good to review old stuff and clean out or revise what is out of date (regulations and closets included), picking an arbitrary number is ridiculous.
Also, invalidating Chevron is also a mistake. Why would we expect the courts or members of congress to understand the details of every industry? I believe the result will be to further empower lobbyists as the only people left standing who really understand an area.
Also, invalidating Chevron is also a mistake. Why would we expect the courts or members of congress to understand the details of every industry? I believe the result will be to further empower lobbyists as the only people left standing who really understand an area.
10
Owned by the Kochs, in love with right wing dogma and presidential power. Why would any Democrat vote for her?
70
The only positive about this appointment is that, in contrast to many of Trump's appointments, she actually knows something about the agency she will be leading.
11
Yes she knows how to kill it and kill us too.
How about getting rid of food inspections.
How about getting rid of food inspections.
Rao said in her confirmation hearing, "The way I think it will work in practice is that agencies will identify regulations to eliminate. And those regulations might be ineffective ones or excessively burdensome. And those regulations will have to meet a cost-benefit analysis for deregulation before they’re going to impose any new regulatory burdens."
The "cost-benefit analysis for deregulation" defends old regulations that must be eliminated in order to establish a new one. Rao will be in a position to defend and keep old regulations selectively, thereby preventing the institution of new ones. She will be able to choose to protect regulations deemed least harmful to her conservative allies, e.g., the Kochs, in order to block ones deemed harmful to them.
One's interpretation depends on whether one feels that one's main ally as government, elected by those of us who can afford to get to the polls, or industry, whose only motive is to collect our money, and which has little incentive to protect human life and safety or our future climate.
The "cost-benefit analysis for deregulation" defends old regulations that must be eliminated in order to establish a new one. Rao will be in a position to defend and keep old regulations selectively, thereby preventing the institution of new ones. She will be able to choose to protect regulations deemed least harmful to her conservative allies, e.g., the Kochs, in order to block ones deemed harmful to them.
One's interpretation depends on whether one feels that one's main ally as government, elected by those of us who can afford to get to the polls, or industry, whose only motive is to collect our money, and which has little incentive to protect human life and safety or our future climate.
49
She blowing smoke about cost-benefit analysis. There will be a benefit-benefit analysis. Contributions benefitting the GOP will go along with deregulation benefitting the contributors. In GOP world, there is no such thing as a benefit to a regulation. Otherwise the word "regulation" would no be married to the adjective "burdensome".
1
Godspeed. here we have another example on how Trump is putting us back on the right track.
6
Right, let's uncork all the pent-up(?) egoism and sociopatholgy of unregulated capitalism; it's what good Americans call making the country "great again". True freedom is all about letting "all the poisons hatch out" -- right?
4
How so?
Using a sledgehammer where precision surgery is required is not putting us on a right track. Its likely to cause more harm then good. Look at any sort of large "repairs". Like the local Amtrak repairs here to the NYC train hub. Cant just rip it all out and start over...cant just arbitrarily yank out tracks like errant weeds, and expect the things (like commuters) that rely on the trains to work smoothly.
Trump wants to rip things apart, destroy them, as he so often said. He looks at these things like he would leveling a neighborhood for one of his monstrous hotels/casinos. Just a small bump. Rip it all up!
One of the biggest lies of the conservatives is that they think businesses will operate safely and take proper care of their employees...all on their own. No regulations needed. Its a huge lie!
Using a sledgehammer where precision surgery is required is not putting us on a right track. Its likely to cause more harm then good. Look at any sort of large "repairs". Like the local Amtrak repairs here to the NYC train hub. Cant just rip it all out and start over...cant just arbitrarily yank out tracks like errant weeds, and expect the things (like commuters) that rely on the trains to work smoothly.
Trump wants to rip things apart, destroy them, as he so often said. He looks at these things like he would leveling a neighborhood for one of his monstrous hotels/casinos. Just a small bump. Rip it all up!
One of the biggest lies of the conservatives is that they think businesses will operate safely and take proper care of their employees...all on their own. No regulations needed. Its a huge lie!
6
"....A sizable part of Ms. Rao’s new job might involve helping the Trump administration stay within the law as it pursues the changes."
My nomination for Understatement Of The Year!
My nomination for Understatement Of The Year!
8
Democrats need to scrutinize her activities very closely. The Republicans are good at masking regulatory overhauls to serve their masters; the wealthy and powerful.
27
"The destruction of the administrative state" appears to be the only coherent policy of the Trump administration in practice. That, and repealing ObamaCare. This administration tears down rather than creates. Rather unprecedented, given that Bush II created the Homeland Security Department and Reagan introduced new military structures, etc
6
Ms. Rao must realize that under a generally regressive administration like this one her every move will be scrutinized. Global warming is the critical issue of our times and the planet will not wait for even a scholarly regulator if she allows anti-science politics to stand in her way. Trump's base has been baited with so many irrational claims and initiatives that her role is being sorely tested. The people will not tolerate ineptitude from this public servant.
10
Why to worry?
“'In our constitutional democracy,' she said, 'the rule of law should prevail over the rule of what the judge thinks is best.'"
All of that was capriciously tossed aside by her idol Scalia in Heller.
One of the foundations of the rule of law is stare decisis, and in Heller, Scalia tossed aside every precedent in 2d Amendment legal history, where an individual right had never been countenanced before. In fact, Chief Justice Warren Burger, no liberal, was particularly, pointedly dismissive of such a right.
Of the two clause amendment, Scala, putatively an originalist, dismissed the first clause out of hand as a powerless "prefatory clause." So the second, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," must be the phrase that pays, right? No, Scalia went on to name numerous "legitimate" government infringements, including, but not limited to, the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms at Scalia's place of work, or on a commercial flight, or in Congre$$. So much for honoring the words of the founding fathers, and so much for the (conservative) interpretation of the "rule of law" being anything more than the "the rule of what the judge thinks best."
This "scholar" is already bought and paid for by the regulation hostile libertarian Charles Koch.
“'In our constitutional democracy,' she said, 'the rule of law should prevail over the rule of what the judge thinks is best.'"
All of that was capriciously tossed aside by her idol Scalia in Heller.
One of the foundations of the rule of law is stare decisis, and in Heller, Scalia tossed aside every precedent in 2d Amendment legal history, where an individual right had never been countenanced before. In fact, Chief Justice Warren Burger, no liberal, was particularly, pointedly dismissive of such a right.
Of the two clause amendment, Scala, putatively an originalist, dismissed the first clause out of hand as a powerless "prefatory clause." So the second, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," must be the phrase that pays, right? No, Scalia went on to name numerous "legitimate" government infringements, including, but not limited to, the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms at Scalia's place of work, or on a commercial flight, or in Congre$$. So much for honoring the words of the founding fathers, and so much for the (conservative) interpretation of the "rule of law" being anything more than the "the rule of what the judge thinks best."
This "scholar" is already bought and paid for by the regulation hostile libertarian Charles Koch.
57
What is needed is a published standard against which regulations will be tested. Absent that, as any lawyer can attest, there is no rhyme or reason for allowing some and disallowing others. Given how regulations tend to accumulate over time, mostly as a result of addressing earlier problems, there could easily be some paring back of duplicative regulations. I think that some regulations are created to address a public perception that something needs to be done. In fact, the same results could often be achieved had the regulations that were already on the books were enforced according to their terms.
In a way, to use infrastructure as an analogy, we see the same dynamic where a new bridge is built where maintaining the old one would have prevented the problem the new bridge is supposed to address.
In a way, to use infrastructure as an analogy, we see the same dynamic where a new bridge is built where maintaining the old one would have prevented the problem the new bridge is supposed to address.
4
Ms. Rao is the perfect sellout like Clarence Thomas.
Where do they find these people?
How do they hold their head up?
Clearly there is no bottom of the barrel. They are all awful. A George Mason law degree now has the same value as a degree from liberty university. Meaningless, compromised, for sale.
Where do they find these people?
How do they hold their head up?
Clearly there is no bottom of the barrel. They are all awful. A George Mason law degree now has the same value as a degree from liberty university. Meaningless, compromised, for sale.
42
But, he said, “I don’t start with the conviction that Neomi is bad, and anybody Trump picks is going to be horrible and we are doomed.” Actually, based on the list of Trump appointees to all manner of agencies and other positions over the past several months, people SHOULD take the darkest and least hopeful view as being the most logical and supportable. If it turns out that we are not in fact doomed, well that would be an unexpected surprise.
21
America's plutocrats apparently would be nowhere if they weren't profoundly enabled liars, cheats, and traitors.
15
"He added, 'Maybe Neomi will surprise us.' "
Or maybe she'll do exactly what we would expect a member of the Trump administration to do. Ya think?
Or maybe she'll do exactly what we would expect a member of the Trump administration to do. Ya think?
260
"Elections have consequences", I believe Mr. Obama said that. Next time put up a less horrible candidate.
2
If she surprises us she'll be fired by Trump.
1
Ummm... I think it's the Electoral College that has consequences. Learn to count.
3
"Maybe she will surprise us." Justice Gorsuch did NOT.
90
The bottom line will be if she makes America safer for business or for employees and consumers. There is no reason to believe that improving government efficiencies has to come at a cost to equity or safety, but that does seem to be the Republican approach. Consider the water in Detroit, and how public safety was put after short sighted economic concerns.
16
Joseph Barnett,
I read extensively about the Flint (Detroit?) water problem and I have to say that it was a bi-partisan tragedy from the local officials to the state officials to the EPA. But go ahead and blame Republicans for it exclusively if that makes you feel good. Any more examples that can be shot down?
I read extensively about the Flint (Detroit?) water problem and I have to say that it was a bi-partisan tragedy from the local officials to the state officials to the EPA. But go ahead and blame Republicans for it exclusively if that makes you feel good. Any more examples that can be shot down?
"Ms. Rao, a Republican, publicly celebrated the legacy of Mr. Scalia and praised the Koch donation as “game changing” for the law school."
Yeah, it turned the school into an ideological bordello.
Yeah, it turned the school into an ideological bordello.
142
I agree. After reading this article is there any doubt that in America today, Money=Speech. If you don't have money, and lots of it, you won't be heard.
3
Clever and so true.
Wow, her "associates" reads like the right wing hall of fame. Mix that in with the destructive power of Trump, Bannon, Pruitt, DeVos, Perry, and Mnuchin, and we've got a cocktail that should make the entire planet shudder.
131
Under the headline on my homepage is this lede (?):
"Neomi Rao is expected to run an obscure but powerful office at the heart of President Trump’s plan to reshape government rules."
Trump doesn't really have any plans. He's a puppet for a wide collection of nasty people who are using him to destroy our government. Not only doesn't he have a plan, but he doesn't know he's being used, and has no clue as to the possible consequences of his term in office.
"Neomi Rao is expected to run an obscure but powerful office at the heart of President Trump’s plan to reshape government rules."
Trump doesn't really have any plans. He's a puppet for a wide collection of nasty people who are using him to destroy our government. Not only doesn't he have a plan, but he doesn't know he's being used, and has no clue as to the possible consequences of his term in office.
163
She will be trying to bring to fruition whatever the Koch's want. To abolish any government regulations that might have a negative impact on Koch Industries bottom line. No matter how it might affect the health and welfare of average Americans.
She is a paid gun for the Koch brothers and has been put in place to pay them back for whatever they have contributed to Republican campaigns.
She is a Swamp Creature.
She is a paid gun for the Koch brothers and has been put in place to pay them back for whatever they have contributed to Republican campaigns.
She is a Swamp Creature.
197
Ms. Rao's character may be imputed by the datum that Scalia died whilst taking a bribe, thus making an example for future George Mason law students.
65
Will she be cutting FAA regulations too?
Phil Hartman use to play Frankenstein on SNL. Frankenstein only ever said one thing- "FIRE BAD!"
Similarly, all Republicans ever say is "REGULATIONS BAD!"
Phil Hartman use to play Frankenstein on SNL. Frankenstein only ever said one thing- "FIRE BAD!"
Similarly, all Republicans ever say is "REGULATIONS BAD!"
22
Many people are not old enough to remember Thalidomide, aluminum wiring, metal fans without guards, and thousands of other unsafe products that have littered our homes and workplaces.
We decry the lack of safety oversight in China while the Republican government salivates to imitate it.
Corporations are designed to produce profit. "Let the buyer beware." Every dollar the Koch brothers save by avoiding pollution regulations goes straight into their pockets.
The spotlight needs to stay brightly fixed on this person and this agency.
We decry the lack of safety oversight in China while the Republican government salivates to imitate it.
Corporations are designed to produce profit. "Let the buyer beware." Every dollar the Koch brothers save by avoiding pollution regulations goes straight into their pockets.
The spotlight needs to stay brightly fixed on this person and this agency.
346
I'm old enough to remember. And I'm also old enough to remember 10 page regulations that were specific enough to impact their intended goal without the pork and unintended consequences of today's legislation and regulations.
If metal fans were made without guards today, and the current jokers in DC got involved, we wouldn't be able to recognize a fan and it wouldn't cool the room.
If metal fans were made without guards today, and the current jokers in DC got involved, we wouldn't be able to recognize a fan and it wouldn't cool the room.
4
Trump is providing us with Chinese Chicken. From the country that put lead in baby formula. It will NOT be labeled as coming from China.
If he doesn't kill us with nuclear war, he'll kill us with Chinese food.
I hope his local KFC buys it so he can demonstrate its safety.
If he doesn't kill us with nuclear war, he'll kill us with Chinese food.
I hope his local KFC buys it so he can demonstrate its safety.
Having a mind of one's own in this role is fundamental. In sociology it can be described as an office that emphasizes role-making as distinct from role-taking, the latter emphasizing enforcement, the former being more creative. The ingredients of that role will likely be various, but, from my own perspective, I would like to think derived from experience, anyone who likes anchovies on pizza is going to have to earn my trust.
4
"....helping the Trump administration stay within the law...". That would take an army of lawyers.
80
Dan, you're spot on. But don't stop with an army of lawyers.
You'll need the removal of the President, his family and associates.
You'll need the removal of the President, his family and associates.
2
All I see is more destructive rules to replace the ones that protect our environment, our health.
I would like to know who donated the 20 million, and what were the stipulation for the tax free gift. Every where I see that the billionaires are trying to rule the lives of the average working person and seniors as well as students lives. She is just another predator in women's clothes.
I would like to know who donated the 20 million, and what were the stipulation for the tax free gift. Every where I see that the billionaires are trying to rule the lives of the average working person and seniors as well as students lives. She is just another predator in women's clothes.
183
Republicans are convinced EPA rules and regs were designed to harm industry; this is complete nonsense - they were implemented after fact-gathering, debate and consideration of alternative actions and consequences. Public health and safety was the main consideration -all things that Trump and his gang scorn.
'Capricious' was used to describe the undoing of these regs by one of the judges in the recent Appeals Court rejection of Pruitt's attempts to undo some of these rules and regs. Ms Rao needs to understand that undoing them requires the same deliberation that implementing them in the first place required.
'Capricious' was used to describe the undoing of these regs by one of the judges in the recent Appeals Court rejection of Pruitt's attempts to undo some of these rules and regs. Ms Rao needs to understand that undoing them requires the same deliberation that implementing them in the first place required.
269
Good luck on Ms. Rao understanding & deliberating why the laws were enacted in the first place. That would require her to admit that there is a need. As an academic of middle age, her air and water and certainly her college campus were quite clean and orderly. Surely the rest of the country must be the same.
Actually, they don't care whether regulations are designed to hurt industry or not. Their fundamental assumption is that anything that "harms industry" must be done away with, regardless of the consequences. There is no cost-benefit compromise to be made - harming industry is the ultimate evil for which there can never be adequate compensation. Regulations can *only* be burdensome, and cannot possibly have positive consequences. If this sounds like stark raving lunacy to you, welcome to the contemporary conservative mind.
1