Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#151

Post by ccallebs » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:29 PM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #141

rayiner wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. Regulations are constantly being codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. It's about 175,000 pages. It's printed at about 55 lines per page, which makes it about 10 million lines. About the same size as the Linux kernel. That's big, but it's not "we don't even know what's in here" big.

> I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. There are entire books written filled with silly, outdated, or absurd laws and regulations (both federal and state). Here's just a taste[1]: > 18 USC §1382 & 32 CFR §636.28(g)(iv) make it a federal crime to ride a moped into Fort Stewart without wearing long trousers. > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) make it a crime to wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fis…

> 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c)

That should absolutely still be on the books. You'd have people cleaning fish in bathrooms.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#152

Post by nkw » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:29 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #96

dharmon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows how many outdated regulations are still on the books? It seems the thing to do would be hire interns to start scouring for every "A married woman shall not chop down a birchwood tree on the day of her wedding while wearing her bridal gown" style law. If this idea persisted for 50 years maybe they'd have to start repealing actual relevant regulations.

> It seems the thing to do would be higher interns to start scouring for every "A married woman shall not chop down a birchwood tree on the day of her wedding while wearing her bridal gown" style law. Sure, but how many of those exist at a federal level? Those are often city, county and sometimes state regulations.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074

Those are just from randomly clicking around Title 18 which are actual crimes. When you get into regulations you end up going through stuff like this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/143.6

Yes the "repeal two regulations before imposing one" is just a gimmick, but there are an insane number of federal laws and regulations that are, at best, unneeded.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#153

Post by DanBC » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:29 PM UTC

carlob wrote: post #139

Wow did he just take a page directly from Berlusconi's book? Berlusconi did the exact same 100 days contract about ten years ago!

100 day plans are very common in business world, epecially among directors of medium - large companies.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#154

Post by threeseed » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:30 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #103

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #43

Some of this sounds great - term limits on congress, a measure to reduce the revolving door effect of government officials going into lobbying. Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it. The scariest things for me are the backing out of cli…

I guess you haven't been paying attention. Many people don't believe in Global Warming, or at the very least don't want to even slightly impact the economy. The Democrats weren't going to hold office forever, and neither will the Republicans. The best thing for everyone would be for market-based solutions that have clear advantages. Solar, wind, electric cars, nuclear, etc. Republicans, for example, will put solar on…

Completely ignorant position.

Market based solutions only work if the market is fair i.e. all players are subject to the same conditions. The problem is (a) fossil fuels have large subsidies all up/down the chain and (b) fossil fuels do not have a surcharge for their impact on the environment.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#155

Post by akiselev » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:30 PM UTC

semiel wrote: post #101

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #43

Some of this sounds great - term limits on congress, a measure to reduce the revolving door effect of government officials going into lobbying. Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it. The scariest things for me are the backing out of cli…

> Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it. Canada has a variation on this law. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.5/page-1.html#h-...

It may look similar on the surface but Trump's proposal is nothing like the Canadian red tape reduction laws. The latter are focused on reducing the administrative burden of demonstrating regulatory compliance but it does not impact the regulations themselves except as a last resort. The vast majority of the time, compliance can be streamlined to offset the extra cost of new regulations. What Trump wants to do is cut regulations he and his supporters are ideologically opposed to while framing it as his public service meant to benefit small business owners.

Edit: Also note that in the preamble it specifically says "Canadians and small businesses." This law does not impact, for example, environmental or safety regulations for real estate developers or utilities. Trump will almost certainly try to cut EPA regulations but something like the Canadian law would never allow that.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#156

Post by ocdtrekkie » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:30 PM UTC

dugmartin wrote: post #39

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't believe there's any chance of that passing. However, if Donald Trump actually can make that happen, I will forgive everything I hold against him, because it would clear out most of our government rot within the next two elections.

I doubt it would make much of a difference - money is like water in politics, it will find its way in. Instead of the money coming in as donations for future elections it will be about promises of huge salary for the job after you hit your term limit, unless of course you only want those who don't need to work hold our elective offices.

Ah, but the fourth item on his list is to forbid outgoing Congresscritters from those jobs for half a decade. At the least, he (or someone working for him) seems to have considered that.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#157

Post by yabatopia » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:30 PM UTC

jamisteven wrote: post #123

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #43

Some of this sounds great - term limits on congress, a measure to reduce the revolving door effect of government officials going into lobbying. Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it. The scariest things for me are the backing out of cli…

Why is that scary? Do you know how many of these laws are absolutely useless in present day?

No. Do you?

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#158

Post by darawk » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:31 PM UTC

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #43

Some of this sounds great - term limits on congress, a measure to reduce the revolving door effect of government officials going into lobbying. Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it. The scariest things for me are the backing out of cli…

> Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it.

IMO this is the best thing in there. The burden of complex legislation is incredible, and there are tens of thousands of pages that could be simplified and/or removed entirely. It'd be a very long time before we ran out of stuff to prune and the benefits of doing this would be enormous.

It's hard to overstate the benefits of individuals being able to actually comprehend the legal areas in which they operate.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#159

Post by kbenson » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:31 PM UTC

dharmon wrote: post #114

kbenson wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems the thing to do would be higher interns to start scouring for every "A married woman shall not chop down a birchwood tree on the day of her wedding while wearing her bridal gown" style law. Sure, but how many of those exist at a federal level? Those are often city, county and sometimes state regulations.

That's the important question. If the answer is, "not that many", then this would probably lead to gridlock. Not the worst outcome, I guess.

> Not the worst outcome, I guess.

It's both comical and sad that I think you're correct in that assessment, but only because it's been so gridlocked already, that it's just the continuation of what we know and what we know it to be pretty shitty.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#160

Post by coleca » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:31 PM UTC

ohyoutravel wrote: post #102

snowwrestler wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USDS, in its current form, is probably toast. It was a special initiative of Obama and is housed directly within his executive office. To my knowledge it exists solely at the President's discretion. Trump is not a digital guy, and not likely to want to hold over Obama folks (and vice versa). 18F is housed within GSA and so is somewhat isolated from political interference. That said, private contractors don't like it…

I disagree on USDS. My understanding is that the money to fund USDS is already appropriated through the end of 2017, and there is bipartisan support to extend that money. A bill was introduced to do just that, actually (though nothing has been done with it since it was referred to committee). Lots of people like USDS on both sides of the aisle because it actually does make things more efficient. Not saying it will su…

Mikey Dickerson, the head of USDS, spoke at Velocity Conf in NYC this Sept and he was hinting that the organization was done for after this administration comes to a close. It will be a shame if this is true, as his group is a shining example of great work being done for the people and something to be proud of and continued.

Here is his presentation: https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/two-years-of-the-us-digital-se...