2 out for 1 in is arbitrary.nafod wrote:The 2 out/1 in on federal regulations is a good idea
eliminating unnecessary regs makes sense. i don't need a gas can with a safety mechanism that becomes unworkable after a coup[le of months. but "ordering" 2 for 1" is pure caprice, carnival barking, not governing based on a reasoned assessment (i.e. cost/benefit) of the situation.
for example, is there a sound reason to eliminate a rule that prevents coal mining operation from dumping mining debris in streams?
also i don't understand what is wrong with requiring a financial adviser to have a fiduciary duty to his/her client. you'd think that would be the financial guy's equivalent of a hipporcractic oath.
so far, i'm not sure any of the fat blonde's grandstanding affects me personally, but he's surely a hot windbag who make the sirocco seem like a gentle breeze.