Regulation tap dance
Congressional Democrats worried about abysmal poll numbers are appealing to the Obama administration and to federal bureaucrats to lighten up on job-killing government regulations — at least until after the midterm elections.
Using their party's control over the federal bureaucracy “has become a critical part of the Democratic efforts to maintain control of the Senate,” The Washington Post reports. But what's witnessed is nothing more than a poorly choreographed tap dance.
There's New Hampshire Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services asking for help for constituents who lost their access to longtime health care providers. And Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, submitted an entire list to Team Obama for agency decisions to boost Dems' re-election prospects, The Post reports.
But legislators don't have to go begging for regulatory relief. The Constitution “gives lawmakers — not administration bureaucrats — the exclusive power to make law,” reminds Rich Tucker of The Heritage Foundation.
Whether the sore point is an environmental diktat or a burdensome business regulation, there is no substitute for clearly written, legally binding legislation.
The way to change bad federal laws of late is to change the Congress. That opportunity presents itself on Election Day.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.
- The Western Psych grand jury report: Do the right thing
- The China question
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Thursday wrap
- The Chevy Volt: Short-circuited (again)
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Blaming Israel: A new low