Transcript via Real Clear Politics:
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells MSNBC regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirement.
“I think the answer is no,” Ellison said when asked if he believes regulations kill jobs. “And here is why: When we talked about increasing fuel efficiency standards, the industry responded, and they need engineers and designers and manufacturers, and they need actually more people to help respond to the new requirement.”
“I believe if the government says, look, we have got to reduce our carbon footprint, you will kick into gear a whole number of people that know how to do that or have ideas about that, and that will be a job engine. I understand what you mean, because if anything adds a cost to a business, you could assume that that will diminish that business’s ability to hire. But I don’t think that’s actually right. I think what businesses want is customers and what — if they are selling product, if they have a product to sell they will do well even if they have some new regulations to meet,” the Congressman said.
Regulations are laws that are created ex cathedra the legislature and subject to little scrutiny if any. We have enough trouble with laws that exist already let alone a plethora of new laws, regualtions, and ordinances.
Laws need to be repealed more often than not and this is impossible to do without changing the way laws subsist.
Here is how to do it.
(1) Make all laws subject to recall for deliberation or abololition. Why just recall the politicians why not recall what they get up to aswell?
(2) If the recall petition exceeds 1 million signatures it is put in abeyance. You name the number 1 million is a suggestion.
(3) If the recall is over 2 million it is abolished not just recalled.
One method might be to convene a deliberative body of volunteers like a grand jury of 24 people to hear arguments about why the law should be abolished or kept on the books. This would put the govenment law makers on their mettle to justfy what is so often unjustifyable! If the grand recall jury decides on a majority the law is suspended if unanimous the law is struck.
Perhaps for regulations the jury should be of 12 or as little as 6 people to ensure speedy removal of low level legislation and rules.
Deliberations should be held in court rooms or other suitable venues for hearing oral argument. Subpoena powers wouldn’t be neccessary as the power to delete a law would bring the combatants to court to keep their creation on the books.
Relying on the courts or the legislature to remove bad laws will be to wait forever in most cases. There needs to be an institutional change about how laws are removed. The recall process should be outside the legislature so that abolishing laws can be feasible.
Having laws that are defeasible will prevent the legislature from enacting laws that are oppressive or just plain point less. Once laws are subject to recall there would be very few of them and only those that are acceptable would remain on the books.
A Republic, or any democratic nation, needs a method of removing laws as much as a way of creating them. Currently, laws that are unacceptable to the majority are largely unremovable. Obamacare, if it were subject to deliberative recall, would never have been passed as the legislators would know that challenge would be immediate and successful.
Pass this idea on, it isn’t perfect but it is worth consideration.
I disagree. He is much MORE DUMB than that Box of Rocks.