The WSJ has an article on regulation that shows how little they understand regulation. It’s here, though it may be gated, so I’ll provide relevant excerpts.
It’s too boring for the press corps to notice, but a growing body of evidence suggests that the Obamanauts are undermining these basic due diligence practices that have been commonly accepted by whatever party happened to be in power.
Take the rule-making aftershocks of the Dodd-Frank overhaul of financial markets, which the Government Accountability Office reviewed in detail in a late November report. The GAO observes that the law "requires or authorizes various federal agencies to issue hundreds of regulations," some discretionary, others not. Among the 32 final rules the banking, futures and securities agencies have issued so far and GAO reviewed, the report dryly notes that "regulators may be missing an opportunity to enhance the rigor and improve the transparency of their analyses."
It goes on to say that the regulations are badly written, but the paragraphs above are the interesting part, since virtually every statement in them is wrong and/or weird.
A bit of background is in order. Your humble blogger is working on several "Dodd-Frank related" rule-makings. Interestingly, I was working on some of the same rule-makings before Dodd-Frank was passed and before Obama was President (so much for the term Obamanauts – we were here before him and we’ll be here after him).
Once Dodd-Frank passed, Republican law-makers began lobbying us bureaucrats (yes, Congressmen lobby us to actually write the law) to water down Dodd-Frank. Democrats on the other hand, lobbied us to strengthen the various portions of the law.
The WSJ’s second paragraph notes that bureaucrats have largely sided with Republicans. Why is the WSJ complaining about this? In this case, the bureaucracy is doing what they want.