What’s the best way for the Trump administration to fix the federal regulations that end up impacting small businesses more than large ones?
NAHB invited leaders from a number of trade and professional associations to the National Housing Center May 4 to toss around their ideas during the Regulatory ReFORUM: Meaningful Relief for Small Business.
Each presidential administration is elected on a platform that includes cutting red tape and creating new jobs.
One of Trump’s first executive orders was one requiring that for every new regulation issued, two earlier ones be identified for revision or elimination. Similar policies have been tried in countries including the United Kingdom and Canada.
Panelists in three sessions discussed how the order could be implemented for labor, environmental and green building, or resiliency regulations and debated whether it was more important to cut the overall number of existing regulations or focus on the most expensive ones.
It’s difficult, said one panelist, to discuss the pros and cons of regulatory relief in today’s polarized political environment, in which advocates on both sides of the fence are less inclined to listen to opposing viewpoints.
OMB official Dominic Mancini (right) talks to NAHB ‘s Paul Lopez about White House initiatives.
Others, seeking to manage expectations, also reminded the audience that it often takes just as much time amending or removing problematic regulations as it does creating new ones.
But the president is determined to lessen the burden on small businesses, even as he attempts to shrink the government agencies that can help him accomplish this task.
“We know regulation is expensive and we need to reform it,” said keynote speaker Dominic J. Mancini of the White House Office of Management and Budget. “If we have to do more with less, we will.”
