What's Your Opinion: Do you support the Trump administration’s plan to eliminate three existing federal regulations for every new regulation proposed?

After working for the Federal Government for over 48 years I'll have to agree there are too many regulations. Now the problem seems to be that where do you eliminate and where do you add. When new manufacturing processes are created there might be a need to insure that the workers are properly trained and equipped to perform their work assignments. Most OSHA regulations are written in blood and created by "other" written documents or by individuals that work or did work in a particular career field. Hopefully the people they select to add and eliminate have good input from the field. Afterall isn't a safe work environment what we all want to achieve? I think that a 2 to eliminate for every 1 created is a better ratio. That's why I voted "No" on the survey.

Though I don't support Trump, I do like this initiative because in the short term at least, it would be an improvement to eliminate archaic regulations and streamline regulatory processes. People voted for Trump either as a protest, or because they want smaller government, and now look what happened. Americans are stuck with an unqualified reality TV star, who rejects science, as president. The least they deserve is to get a smaller government. I just worry about which regulations will be cut.

OSHA , EPA and DOT have lost touch with reality. It is my observation that they are no longer concerned with safety but have replaced it with compliance. Look at the most cited items and compare it with actual accidents. They are ships passing in the night. I don't they are capable of truly reforming their objective. The all encompassing blanket regulations are smothering businesses. That is why I voted Yes.

Yes, I support President Trump's 3 for 1 mandate. Combined, the Dodd-Frank Finance Bill and the Affordable Care Act codified 4,000-5,000 pages of "aspirational language"* into federal law. A follow-on was that our President's Regulatory Czar, author of a social justice book titled "Nudge", realized his life's ambition. He was given free reign to interpret this "aspirational language" and decree the regulations to enforce his interpretations... to "nudge" our society toward his utopian vision. The result? Thousands of pages of regulations that carry the force of law. Written by un-elected bureaucrats. Done outside the reach of congressional oversight. So, yeah, I support the 3 for 1. I wish it was 50 for 1. * Senator Bob Corker used this phrase to describe these two laws when he spoke to a group in Knoxville, TN in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election

He's allowing companies to function again. Companies were getting choked out by regulations just for the sake of regulations. It's like the only way to justify their jobs wasn't by managing their organizations. It was purely by making more rules. Any rule as long as they were making more all the time.

A comprehensive review of active regulations with a simplified response report, followed by a random testing for each issuing regulatory body would have better served ALL parties - the workers, the businesses, the issuing bodies, and the government in total. There are way too many silly regs across the board and way too many affected parties spending time circumventing or continuing regs as benefits themselves rather than workers. I voted "no" as I see this as another non-productive task likely to benefit only a few.

There should be at least four (4) exceptions to the "eliminate three (3) for every proposed (new regulation/standard)" effort. - The first is when/if a regulation/standard involves the personal/professional safety of employees. - The second is when/if a regulation/standard involves the personal/professional health of employees. - The third is when/if a regulation/standard involves the personal/professional security of employees. - The fourth is when/if a regulation/standard involves protection of organizational assets (equipment/real-property).

I believe we should combine OSHA and MSHA which would eliminate and improve some of the Federal guidelines in which improving the safety and protection of the workers. I also think they should eliminate some of the over-stringent requirements for instructors and to be an OSHA or MSHA instructor.

I still have 30+ years until retirement and the previous rate we would have regulated jobs and employer's so severely it would continue to drive jobs away from the U.S and make such a negative impact. I am all about Safety, but at what point is to much and when do we start looking at these folks eating tide pods as the issue and not the Company's.

Regulations keep business owners in check in regards to employee safety. If employers are actually concerned for their employee safety they would provide safer work environments than regulations require. In some employer's opinion Safety is only a good value if it's free. Training is the most often ignored. Too little too late is what employees suffer from. Injuries due to lack of training is (in my opinion) one of the biggest reasons injuries occurr in the private sector. Its apparent that the millionaire business owners elected to office that are in charge of funding still may have their interests on the top of their list of desires. Safety if not near the top of that list in most cases - just one person's opinion.

While I am generally in favor of fewer regulations (and a smaller bureaucracy to manage them) I am always concerned when a quota is assigned to manage a system. Regulations should be driven by the need to control a problem not just to reach a certain number of regulations.

It makes a great sound bite, but has no connection to the real world. Maybe there are 3 useless regs hanging out there for each new, important reg, maybe not. Great to eliminate old, useless stuff, but a new reg might be very necessary, especially in safety and health, for example, if a new hazard appears due to new technology or equipment, or based on data that wasn't previously available. Three is just an arbitrary number that sounds good.

I recognize that there are outdated regulations that should be reviewed and eliminated. But putting a "3 to 1" rule in place in this political environment concerns me. The current administration does not recognize the value of peer-reviewed science and scientists. Agencies like the Chemical Safety Board are targeted for elimination. (Raise your hand if you've ever used one of their outstanding videos for training! Those are the result of CSB investigations of serious accidents.) For me, the last straw was the proposed gutting of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The health, safety, and welfare of ALL Americans should be what's important when crafting or updating regulations, not policies and procedures that make it easy for businesses to make money at the expense of their workforce.

I am highly suspicious of anything coming from Dishonest Donald's chaotic and corrupt Band Of Billionaires. True, we could streamline and update many regs, but the Trumpites are not the ones to do it-- because they value wealth over safety and health. Their motivation is does not come from a good place.

We need to simplify regulations and shrink government.

I voted no because I don't trust Donald Trump to understand the true meaning of safety. I would like to see the regulations tailored to today market. I have worked in the trades industry for 40 years. When I teach our students about the hazards of our trades past and our contractors responsibility to their safety today. I wonder sometimes are we doing enough to protect our work force today.

There are far to many Federal Regulations they are choking our great country to death.

What a ridiculous waste of money. It takes a long time for some of these regulations - especially safety regulations - to be vetted, revised and finally released. I agree that there are some regulations that aren't very well written, but those regulations need to be revisited not totally removed. Who is going to decide which regulations need to be removed? Who would YOU trust to make those decisions anyway? A political appointee with very little working knowledge that might have a vested interest in removing certain legislation? No thanks, Donald! Stick to what you do best - tweeting and making inappropriate comments about your opponents that would get any one of us fired. Thanks for being such a great role model (by the way I'm not a liberal or a democrat).

I DO NOT support eliminating three regulations for every new regulation. I believe having the regulations in place and adding as needed, ensures there are less loopholes companies can exploit. Regulations should be in place to protect the American citizen and the environment first, well above the profits of the company and the political contributions from lobbyists and/or companies

The deciding factor should not be the quantity of regulations, but the situations or circumstances that propagated the regulation. There is no magic number; 1000 is okay, but 1500 is too many. They should be in place to keep people safe. If there are 'too many regulations', they should be evaluated individually without playing a numbers game.

OSHA must not be working if the rate of work related deaths is going up, opiate usage going up and recreational marijuana is being legalized. There are so many regulations that our employees don't remember what they were trained in and for what! Yes, we need confined space regulations, electrical safety etc. The silica regulations are good for vendors as their sales must be way up as companies replace or retrofit tools. The products become more dangerous and may actually discriminate (for women, older workforce) as some of the tools are really heavy and cumbersome to use and will result in many more injuries.

We should look at this from a true safety standpoint and not have bias because of who ordered the change. It is my opinion that most regulations are confusing to say the least. Every situation or circumstance cannot be addressed specifically in a regulation, leaving most to be open to interpretation. This is a problem that, in my opinion, possibly leads us fail in protecting our employees. After all, if we're following regulations (even if by our own interpretation), it must be safe. Right Interpretation can even be quite different among OSHA inspectors.

Please remove the comments that contain the personal attacks on our President. They are inappropriate for this venue and most likely posted by cowards with an opposite view point.

I do support less regulations, but as others have said, with caution and wisdom for those who are reviewing and making the decisions. It is important that workers are properly trained, equipped and follow good safety guidelines in all industries. However, for small businesses there is generally no "professional HR manager" and we must labor through volumes of online regulations that may or may not be applicable to our particular industry or staffing.

This entire string of comments has been entertaining, to say the least. I have enjoyed reading them. If we have outdated or no longer useful regulations, they should be abolished by a group of professionals related to that regulation. I know it sounds utopian, but we have "committees" for everything else in Washington. I have been a safety pro for about 30 years now and I have worked for or around businesses whose leaders should have been locked up. I have worked for or around companies that only followed the safety regulations to keep from paying fines-not because they cared about their employees. I have worked for Git 'Er Done, Inc. who didn't care who they got hurt as long as they finished with a profit. Do we need regulations? Unfortunately, the answer is: yes. So, what do we do? It doesn't matter what your politics are, it matters what you do to keep your workforce safe and how you get there. We have businesses that operate outside the realm of good judgment and some that actually do care about their employees and want to keep them safe. So we have to balance between the two and hopefully write laws that are fair and balanced and make sense. Do we need to abolish on a 3 to 1 basis? Where do you stop? I think this deserves a lot of discussion, but unfortunately that's all we get from Washington at times. I don't have all the answers but I do know that making a sweeping change like getting rid of 3 regulations for every 1 can have some serious consequences. I would tell 'Big Brother' to be cautious in their endeavors. People's lives are at stake.

I think that's a fantastic idea. A lot of regulations have been generated by bored government workers trying to justify their position, and by those who this is the only little bit of power they will ever have by forcing companies and thereby people to jump through a lot of hoops. They would be better off refining rules which actually serve the industry and eliminating all of the other ones.

This approach is an arbitrary one. Let's put some thought into legislation. If a regulation can be changed or even eliminated, good. Change it. But an arbitrary approach hurts more than it helps

There are several standards that need to be reviewed and updated. Adding standards that took several years to promulgate, often times making the information outdated, or pushing standard through the system when technology does not exist to comply is of no benefit to the employee or the employer.

The government is too loaded down with red tape. Many times the regulations make no sense. I personally have had a couple of OSHA inspectors on site over the years that had totally different opinions on what a regulation meant. So, how are employers supposed to manage that? We need less government.

I fully and completely support this initiative. The nonsense regulations that have been stuffed in bills to satisfy some lobbyist are mind blowing. Time to trim the fat and get on with the business of Making America Great Again. The President is a businessman first and knows how these tired useless regulations merely clog the process and slow the system. If nothing else President Trump is winning for America. Finally a President that stands behind America and not special interest groups.

I fully support any/all changes proposed/implemented by U.S. President Donald J. Trump, Vice President Michael R. Pence, and all assigned cabinet secretaries/agency directors...krs

The intended action is to force the affected agencies to review their existing regulations (some which may have been enacted decades earlier) to see which ones are no longer needed and can be eliminated because they are outdated or no longer apply based on current technology and/or business practices. That should be the focus of the regulation review - those regulations that can be eliminated or consolidated.

The Trump administration is striving for a 2:1 reduction in regulatory action not a 3:1 based upon my reading of the executive order. This type of polling is misleading and does not reflect the administration's efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on industry. The link and text of the executive order is below: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-controlling-regulatory-costs/ Presidential Executive Order: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. In addition to the management of the direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars through the budgeting process, it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

There are too many regulations that do not directly promote Safety or extremely expensive to companies to enact that do not ensure Safety.

Regulations are in place for a reason. There shouldn't be a quota forcing elimination.

We only get one opportunity to life that I am aware of. We should be doing everything we can to save our resources, advance safety and health for future generations, and respect the findings of science.

I'm not in favor of arbitrarily lobbing off regulations as a publicity stunt to make it look as if the President is actually capable of governing. Removing unnecessary regulations is the proper thing to do, but it must be done with careful consideration. Washington types are great at saying that they are doing something when in fact they just pull a shell game. Trump is appealing to emotion. not to reason. Government by emotion is mob rule.

Quotas are not a good way to conduct quality. Although I agree that regulations should be reviewed on a regular basis, and that duplicative, obsolete, or excessively burdensome regs should be targeted for elimination or revision, regulations should not be eliminated just for elimination's sake. Beyond that, no regulations should be eliminated if such elimination increases risk to persons or the environment, per the science.

The swamp has to be drained, this will not be easy. Just like good housekeeping, you have to throw some things out to figure out what you have and which hazards are beneath the trash. The trash is a hazard itself, and not all of it actually is "trash". But we won't know until we clean up.

while it is true that there are statutes which are no longer relevant, and which could be eliminated, it makes no sense to *require* that three regulations be repealed for every new one enacted. trump has stacked the deck with science deniers and individuals bent on deconstructing government agencies to remove protections designed to keep the environment clean. Over the past 50 years we've seen many changes designed to keep workers safe and healthy, to curb pollution of the environment, and to protect endangered species, woodlands, and other public-owned national parks and recreation areas. these changes and protections are seen by trump as barriers to wanton exploitation for the benefit of a select few and a loss to millions of citizens and tourists. We need to fight trump's agenda of deconstruction for the sake of expediency, while upholding protections for individuals and the environment, and taking a critical look at what regulations can be removed as no longer relevant. Furthermore, our Federal policies and regulations need to reflect the best information assembled by the scientific community rather than science-illiterate politicians, billionaires, and bible thumpers.

Too many low cost (time, money, focus)/benefit regs. The number of regs has swelled through the years. Are conditions really worse than years or decades ago? Fewer low cost/benefit regs allows more focus on the high value ones. Agency staff have no incentive to eliminate low cost/benefit regs. A 3:1 mandate forces or challenges them. My boss in private industry forced me to do something similar: reduce the number of words or pages in my policies. I initially hated it. But it worked to the my & company’s benefit.

Lets get rid of the "granny" state and those regulations that do nothing to improve our quality of life.

Health and safety are very under=regulated. Most OSHA PELs are based on 1960s science. The federal government should not have to kill three of its children as the price of birthing a new one.

I work in the transportation industry. I often call an enforcement officer when I have questions about a regulation. Often the enforcement officer has no idea what the answer to my question is. If enforcement, specific to my industry, with all of their training of when a violation occurs, has no idea, how does the government expect those regulated to know how to stay in compliance? There is only one problem with Trumps policy. He should have required ten regulations to be removed for each new one.

Safety regulations have saved thousands of lives, so that’s a good thing. But with that said, I think the regulations could be restructured keeping all OSHA standards in tact using less regulations.

I believe that the "Look at the most cited items and compare it with actual accidents" argument is just begging for re-visiting each and every rule, which would open up the possibility of accidents that haven't occurred in a long time to start re-occurring again. The rules were "written in blood", why would you want to revisit those days? Would you care as less for human life if it were your child? It seems that the greed for more money, is causing some safety professionals to lose their way. After working in retail, restaurants, public works, metal fabrication, Michigan OSHA, and Federal OSHA I witnessed multiple situations that mimic another comment already mentioned which I agree with. Regulations keep business owners in check in regards to employee safety. If employers are actually concerned for their employee safety they would provide safer work environments than regulations require. In some employer's opinion Safety is only a good value if it's free. Training is the most often ignored. Too little too late is what employees suffer from. Injuries due to lack of training is (in my opinion) one of the biggest reasons injuries occur in the private sector. Its apparent that the millionaire business owners elected to office that are in charge of funding still may have their interests on the top of their list of desires. Safety if not near the top of that list in most cases.

To many workers are injured or kill on the job I have just returned from the United Steel Workers H&S conf. The number of workers killed or injured is Sad I don't have the stats on non union work places but I am sure it's a lot more No one should need bto die to support their family Howard Boyer United Steel Workers Union local 4-417 H&S

Government has gotten out of control with way too many regulations

Quota systems always back-fire due to what I term "the law of unintended consequences". Think about other quota systems you've encountered in life. How many played out without causing some unintended adverse effect on others? Certainly there are cumbersome and outdated regulations which have no place in the current scheme of things, so I am not totally opposed to review and repair, but not with the process managed as some blind quota. Beyond that, workplace safety, transportation, environmental and banking regulations are in place to protect "We The People" from abuse and harm by those motivated by greed and/or hobbled by stupidity. Be careful what you wish for, you might not like what you get.

To many that aren't relevant. The forest service can't buy treated clothing - but the Army can. Everyone has to have bloodborne pathogens training every year? Even if you are not in the medical/health field. Reporting - how many people really look at some of the reports. Required training has been specialized so you can only deal with certain companies ? Nation-wide we have been told we can only use one source for ATV training (very expensive), when we have are own local DNR that can provide the training - keeping it local.

I do support elimination of outdated and/or redundant regulations, but do not agree with a quota based approach. The number removed is entirely based upon the merit for continuation of the regulation and its effect upon society. In this poll, we are only provided a yes or no option. A third option to agree with certain aspects of the plan should have been available. What happened to compromise and the middle ground?

Freedom has always had risks. Totalitarianism and other repressive forms of government have always had more risks.

Eliminating three regulations, that were enacted to prevent worker harm, injury and death, in order to enact a single new regulation is sheer stupidity! OSHA regulations have proven time and time again to save lives. Careless elimination of regulations will result in more worker deaths. If a regulation is becoming long in the tooth, look at revamping it, not eliminating it. In fact, if the politicians would do the right thing and increase OSHA's budget to where they could address these issues in a timely manner, industry would be better served. Elimination of regulations will have the opposite effect on industry and simply transfer cases from the regulators to the courts.

trump is creations tensions befor the cause. treeting a poor but friendly country like mexico like they are less then anyone eles picking a fight with north korea and demanding on top of the more troops trying to make mexico pay for his wall. now all of us has to carry a photo id around with us. from the (motor vehicle) he even got insurance taxed. like..dont bother Canada borders. just mexico. trump needs to feel his own insulting ways and count me in.