Report: Trump halted $181 billion in regulatory costs on first day in office

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/report-trump-halted-181-billion-in-regulatory-costs-on-first-day-in-office.html

 

 

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump effectively halted nearly $200 billion worth of regulations, according to a new analysis.

President Trump has taken aggressive action to curb regulations in his first week, promising to cut 75 percent or "maybe more," and signing an executive order Monday to cut two regulations from the books when every new rule is introduced.

The first move came in the form of a memo to all federal agencies from Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, freezing all recently finalized and pending regulations. The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, found the action resulted in stopping rules that would cost the economy $181 billion.

"On day one in office, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, signed a memo to all executive agencies imposing a regulatory moratorium," wrote Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy for the American Action Forum. "This may sound like an extraordinary action, but President Obama’s then-Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, penned an almost identical memo eight years ago."

"According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, this memo put a hold on $181 billion in total regulatory costs, including $17 billion in annual costs, and 5.5 million hours of paperwork," Batkins wrote. "This moratorium freezes 22 rulemakings with annual costs above $100 million and 16 measures with more than $1 billion in long-term costs."

[smilesammich 10,727]

wonder how the cost of lawsuits/massive beautiful wall/mass deportations/millions without insurance is going to stack up against these 'billions' saved.

here's the american action forum research. interesting how they spin this stuff.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/administrations-regulatory-freeze-halts-181-billion-pending-rules/

[Teddy B 17,252]

NB you were a big opponent of the Obama executive orders, how do you feel about Trump having an EO free for all?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I don't think there are "millions without insurance".  Those without it have to pay a penalty, of course.  And usually the penalty is much less than insurance premiums.  Risky, but it can save one a LOT of money if they are healthy.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

I don't think there are "millions without insurance".  Those without it have to pay a penalty, of course.  And usually the penalty is much less than insurance premiums.  Risky, but it can save one a LOT of money if they are healthy.

I think he meant that there "will be" millions without insurance, now currently. They plan on removing the penalty if they repeal the ACA (unless they keep the penalty like they want to keep other aspects).

 

While not holding insurance may be cheap for the consumer (even with the penalty), it's the government that ends up footing the bill when those people get sick and don't have insurance. A hospital will bill the person, but they won't be able to pay for it. The hospital will then sell that debt to someone else. The hospital loses out, so then they negotiate and end up trying to make more money off the people who do have insurance (mostly Medicaid/Medicare). The system ends up more expensive.

 

Maybe they can use the money saved to build the wall since the "Mexico paying" thing is still a joke. Though I'm wondering where the numbers are coming from. They say "181 billion" but then say "17 billion in annual costs". So are they just multiplying that by 10 years? If so, why stop there? Why not say this will save 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 100 years?

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think he meant that there "will be" millions without insurance, now currently. They plan on removing the penalty if they repeal the ACA (unless they keep the penalty like they want to keep other aspects).

 

While not holding insurance may be cheap for the consumer (even with the penalty), it's the government that ends up footing the bill when those people get sick and don't have insurance. A hospital will bill the person, but they won't be able to pay for it. The hospital will then sell that debt to someone else. The hospital loses out, so then they negotiate and end up trying to make more money off the people who do have insurance (mostly Medicaid/Medicare). The system ends up more expensive.

 

Maybe they can use the money saved to build the wall since the "Mexico paying" thing is still a joke. Though I'm wondering where the numbers are coming from. They say "181 billion" but then say "17 billion in annual costs". So are they just multiplying that by 10 years? If so, why stop there? Why not say this will save 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 100 years?

ultimately taxpayers that end up footing the bill. and not faux taxpayers like trump. 

 

the whole thing is a bill ol' guesstimate, crafted to make trump look awesome.

 

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

25 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

NB you were a big opponent of the Obama executive orders, how do you feel about Trump having an EO free for all?

 

He is doing stuff I like so it's not an issue 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just now, smilesammich said:

ultimately taxpayers that end up footing the bill. and not faux taxpayers like trump. 

 

the whole thing is a bill ol' guesstimate, crafted to make trump look awesome.

 

 

 

Taxpayers footing the bill either way. The key has to be reducing the cost of care. Trump had a meeting with big Pharma today and put them on notice that their prices have go to be gotten under control 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

Taxpayers footing the bill either way. The key has to be reducing the cost of care. Trump had a meeting with big Pharma today and put them on notice that their prices have go to be gotten under control 

why does trump think he can control the prescription drug market by 'putting them on notice'? do you really think that we're going to have 4 years of everyone cowering to trump? please. open up the market, let us import drugs.

 

well shoot, that might not work now either since trump wants to slap 20% on imports.

[Teddy B 17,252]

6 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

He is doing stuff I like so it's not an issue 

It was only because Obama was signing orders you disapproved of? The constitutionality of the executive order never had anything to do with it?

Edited January 31, 2017 by Teddy B

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Teddy B said:

It was only because Obama was signing orders you disapproved of? The constitutionality of the executive order never had anything to do with it?

Yes thats pretty much it in a nutshell 

[Teddy B 17,252]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Yes thats pretty much it in a nutshell 

At least you're honest about it.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

At least you're honest about it.

Thats how I roll 

[KierenHby 899]

Comes down to a dislike of either Dems or an African American prez. Got it!

[smilesammich 10,727]

 

19 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Yes thats pretty much it in a nutshell 

still mad about the bitter clinger thing?