State and federal bureaucracies have dramatically increased their power over the past few decades. Regulations crafted by the numerous departments and agencies of executive branches have had wide-ranging impacts on businesses across the United States and are increasingly affecting overall economic growth and job creation.
To battle this problem, Wisconsin is now considering becoming the first state to implement a state version of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, or REINS Act. The Wisconsin REINS Act aims to limit the growth of the state’s regulations and bureaucracy by requiring the legislature to give final approval to any state regulation that has an economic impact of $10 million or more within the first two years. If a legislative agency were to propose a regulation over the $10 million threshold, it would need to ask the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) to introduce a bill to authorize the rule, modify the rule to lower its cost, or pull back the proposed rule.
Wisconsin ranked, 21st of 50 states in the Pacific Research Institute’s 50 State Small Business Regulation Index, a study that compares all 50 states based on the impact each state’s regulatory environment has on small businesses.
More attention needs to be paid by legislators to the effects regulatory laws have on businesses and workers. The REINS Act would accomplish this by encouraging Wisconsin legislators to more carefully monitor the laws it passes and their possible effects.
According to Wisconsin Watchdog, the bill would also expand public-hearing rules for proposed regulations by allowing JCRAR to request a public hearing during the rulemaking process, even before economic costs are determined. JCRAR would also be empowered to allow for independent review of a proposed regulation’s economic impact, if requested by the Administrative Rules committee.
The Wisconsin REINS bill would additionally require the state’s Department of Administration to determine the agency’s legal authority to create the new rule – a power that now rests with the governor’s office.
Economic growth in the United States has been dramatically slowed by unnecessary and costly regulations. According to a 2016 study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the U.S. economy has been slowed on average by 0.8 percent per year since 1980 due to the cumulative effects of regulation. The study estimates if the regulatory burden placed on the economy had been held constant at levels observed in 1980, the U.S. economy would have been about 25 percent larger than it was in 2012.
In an article from the Wisconsin-based MacIver Institute, Scott Manley, senior vice president for Government Relations at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), the average U.S. business spends $9,991 per employee each year to comply with regulations. For smaller businesses – those under 50 employees – the cost grows to $11,724. WMC estimates the impact of regulatory costs annually equates to $14,842 per U.S. household, more than the cost of food, clothing, and health care combined.
There is no bill better suited for cutting back on the scope and power of government than the REINS Act. The act gives the legislature the authority to limit the power of unelected bureaucrats while leaving federal agencies appropriate flexibility to implement new regulations.
It is important to remember the REINS Act does not prevent agencies from making new regulation. It is designed to ensure that any new rules with a major impact on the economy face scrutiny by elected officials, who are accountable to the voters. The REINS Act would be an ideal first step in shrinking the bloated bureaucracy in Madison.
The following documents examine REINS Act legislation in greater detail.
Taking the REINS on Regulation
http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/taking-the-reins-regulation
James Gattuso of The Heritage Foundation examines the REINS Act and argues while it does not solve all of the nation’s regulatory problems, it is a commonsense step in the right direction. “REINS would significantly change the way regulations are imposed. Congress would no longer be able to pass hazy legislation and disclaim further responsibility. By increasing Congress’s accountability for regulatory policy, it would end the shell game for responsibility that Members have long played,” wrote Gattuso.
REINing in Regulatory Overreach
https://cei.org/content/reining-regulatory-overreach
In this article for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ryan Young discusses the federal REINS Act and how it would restore the balance between the legislative and executive branches. “The REINS Act, by requiring Congress to reclaim some of its legislative responsibilities from the executive branch, would partially restore this skewed balance of powers. REINS is a modest reform, which, as currently written, would require four or five extra congressional votes per month,” wrote Young.
Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis
https://heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/evaluating-the-quality-and-use-of-regulatory-impact-analysis
Jerry Ellig of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University assesses how well executive branch agencies conduct regulatory analyses. “The Regulatory Report Card reveals that the quality and use of regulatory analysis by federal agencies do not live up to the standards articulated in executive orders and guidance the Office of Management and Budget has created for agencies. The average Report Card score for recent regulations barely exceeds 50 percent,” wrote Ellig.
Would the REINS Act Rein in Federal Regulation?
https://heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/would-the-reins-act-rein-in-federal-regulation
Writing in Regulation Magazine, Jonathan Adler examines the REINS Act and the potential effects it could have on the federal bureaucracy and regulation. “In all likelihood, however, the REINS Act’s congressional approval process would prevent the implementation of particularly unpopular or controversial regulatory initiatives. The primary effect of the legislation would be to make Congress more responsible for federal regulatory activity by forcing legislators to voice their opinion on the desirability of significant regulatory changes,” wrote Adler.
REINS Act Stalls in the Senate?
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2016/03/reins-act-stalls-in-the-senate/
Nick Novak of the MacIver Institute examines Wisconsin’s REINS Act proposals from 2016 and how groups within the state reacted to the proposed law.
5 Reasons to Support the REINS Act
http://www.rstreet.org/2015/07/28/5-reasons-to-support-the-reins-act/
Kevin Kosar of the R Street Institute outlines five reasons why Congress should pass the REINS Act.
The Cumulative Cost of Regulations
https://www.mercatus.org/publication/cumulative-cost-regulations
This study for the Mercatus Center uses an economic model that examines regulation’s effect on firms’ investment choices. “Using a 22-industry dataset that covers 1977 through 2012, the study finds that regulation—by distorting the investment choices that lead to innovation—has created a considerable drag on the economy, amounting to an average reduction in the annual growth rate of the US gross domestic product (GDP) of 0.8 percent,” the authors wrote.
Placing ‘REINS’ on Regulations: Assessing the Proposed REINS Act
https://heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/placing-reins-on-regulations-assessing-the-proposed-reins-act
This article by Jonathan H. Adler of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law examines the REINS Act and its likely effects on regulatory policy. “It explains why constitutional objections to the proposal are unfounded and many policy objections overstate the REINS Act’s likely impact on the growth of federal regulation. The REINS Act is not likely to be the deregulatory blunderbuss feared by its opponents and longed for by some of its proponents. The REINS Act should be seen more as a measure to enhance accountability than to combat regulatory activity,” wrote Adler.
Ten Thousand Commandments 2017
http://cei.org/10KC
Ten Thousand Commandments is the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s annual survey of the size, scope, and cost of federal regulations, and how the U.S. regulatory burden affects American consumers, businesses, and the economy. Authored by CEI Vice President for Policy Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., it shines a light on the large and growing “hidden tax” of America’s regulatory state.
Nothing in this Research & Commentary is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this and other topics, visit the Budget & Tax News website, The Heartland Institute’s website, and PolicyBot, Heartland’s free online research database.
The Heartland Institute can send an expert to your state to testify or brief your caucus; host an event in your state, or send you further information on a topic. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance! If you have any questions or comments, contact John Nothdurft, Heartland’s director of government relations, at [email protected] or 312/377-4000.
Matthew Glans joined the staff of The Heartland Institute in November 2007 as legislative specialist for insurance and finance.
