Regulatory rollback: A good start |

Regulatory rollback: A good start

President Donald Trump shows an executive order signed to Identify and Reduce Tax Regulatory Burdens last month at the Treasury Department From left are, Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Among accomplishments made by the Trump administration in its first “100 days” that likely won’t make the evening news are regulatory reforms, which to date have saved taxpayers more than $86 billion.

That’s the conclusion of a new report by the American Action Forum, a policy institute, which lists various Obama administration regulations that President Trump and Congress have either repealed or delayed, The Hill newspaper reports.

Critics of Mr. Trump’s regulatory rollback say the focus on cost savings ignores the presumptive “benefits” provided by government rules. Ultimately voters will decide whether those savings outweigh the supposed benefits.

Leading the pack of regulatory reforms is the administration’s pullback on the federal Department of Education’s intrusive “Accountability and State Plans” measure, which implements the Obama-era’s “Every Student Succeeds Act.” Alone this regulation would have added $73 million in costs and tacked on 930,000 additional hours in paperwork — presumably to promote better student outcomes, according to The Washington Free Beacon. States haven’t exactly been screaming over loosening this federal slipknot.

Another intrusion since neutered is the Obama administration’s “Waters of the United States” rule, an Environmental Protection Agency monstrosity that would have subjected every lake, pond and puddle to federal regulation. Estimated savings: $16 million.

Unfortunately, government regulation grows exponentially. And true reform is going to require considerably more than just 100 days.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.