Though discussed for many years, it is only in the last decade that regulatory impacts have been seen by the mainstream political establishment as a driving factor in the health of the US economy—impacting our jobs, our competitiveness, and a host of other societal concerns (including the vitality of the middle class). 10 Regulatory Recommendations for the Trump Admin are some of the Institute for Liberty’s recommendations on the issue, and we offer them with one important caveat: There are no silver bullets when it comes to reducing regulatory costs! Regulatory costs have grown steadily since 1970 (though those costs have accelerated since 2007), and while many focus on so-called “major rules” (costing the economy $100 million or more annually), the bulk of regulatory burdens come from the cumulative effect of much-smaller mandates. Evidence shows that by even making modest changes in regulatory costs, massive economic gains can be had. But regardless of whether these changes are minor or major, regulatory reform must be an essential element of the incoming administration’s economic policies if they want to jump-start the economy and put Americans back to work.
These recommendations cover a wide range of tools that the incoming administration can utilize to have a fundamental impact on the regulatory state.
Either major candidate, should he or she be elected, enters the presidency damaged, with massive amounts of distrust from their political opposition. But whereas Sec. Clinton engenders, really, only the distrust of Republicans (and a handful of so-called progressives), Mr. Trump will enter the presidency with massive distrust from a much-wider cross-section of his colleagues in Congress (in both houses).
And therein lies the silver lining… with Republicans, from leadership on downward, deeply concerned with the manner with which Donald Trump will execute his presidency, there is an opportunity for these Republicans to exert enormous pressure on the executive branch to rein in that branch’s power. Moreover, with Democrats nearly-united in opposition to Trump, there is even more of an opportunity to achieve what those distrustful of the unitary executive and executive branch overreach have been trying to do for nearly two decades: meaningful reform and reduction in the power of the President and his appointees—clear legislative language that prescribes precisely how laws are to be implemented, authoritative oversight of agency operations, and a real willingness to use budgetary tools to push back against executive branch mischief.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the interplay between Congress and a Clinton presidency. Should Republicans maintain control of Congress and Sec. Clinton gets elected president, the GOP cannot count on Democrats to work to rein executive branch power. And should the GOP lose control of Congress in 2016 or 2018, with a Clinton presidency we would see the same wholesale abrogation of responsibility that brought the American people massive expansions of executive branch power under Presidents George W. Bush (from 2001-2007) and Barack Obama (from 2009-2011).
It is a mind-boggling concept—the idea that choosing Donald Trump could lead to a fundamental return to the basic constitutional precepts upon which this nation was founded. But one has to recognize that this would be done in spite of the president—most likely without his support (if not his downright opposition). But that’s why the founders separated the powers of government, specifically to prevent one branch from getting too powerful, and, in doing so, to protect individual rights.
So yes… it is possible that a vote for Donald Trump could represent a vote for a return to the principles of individual liberty.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/07/rethinking-nevertrump-how-a-trump-presidency-could-result-in-limited-presidential-power/#ixzz4PRydm0gg