re: Bannon's comments at CPAC were truly disturbing

Some food for thought on the successes of reduction of the Administrative state in other countries:

LINK

quote:

---

Other countries’ experience with regulatory offsets

The Netherlands program established a net quantitative burden reduction target that reduced regulatory burdens by 20% between 2003 and 2007. It is currently on track to save €2.5 billion in regulatory burden between 2012 and 2017 by tying the introduction of new regulations “to the revision or scrapping of existing rules.”

Under Canada’s “One-for-One Rule,” launched in 2012, new regulatory changes that increase administrative burdens must be offset with equal burden reductions elsewhere. Further, for each new regulation that imposes administrative burden costs, cabinet ministers must remove at least one regulation. Similarly, Australia’s policy is that “the cost burden of new regulation must be fully offset by reductions in existing regulatory burden.”

Recommended by Forbes
MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State
TRENDING ON FACEBOOK Trump's Family Trips Cost Taxpayers Nearly As Much In A Month As Obama's Cost...
CargillVoice: In India's Burgeoning 'Corn Bowl,' Technology And Optimism Are All The Rage

The British began with a “One-in, One-out” policy, requiring any increases in the cost of regulation to be offset by deregulatory measures of at least an equivalent value. In 2013, it moved to “One-in, Two-out” (OITO) and more recently to a “One-in, Three-out” policy in an effort to cut red tape by £10 billion.

---