The coronavirus pandemic needs a long-term policy response. The $2 trillion relief package is an example of short-term “flash policy” at its worst. There is a better approach. Governments across the world are removing regulations that are preventing a full coronavirus response. But it is also important to take a long-term view. Many positive examples of longer-term reform are available with the #NeverNeeded hashtag on Twitter. They cover restrictions on everything from healthcare and restaurants to education and communications technology.
Once some semblance of normalcy returns, Congress should appoint a standing independent commission to comb through the Code of Federal Regulations and identify rules that could get in the way of responding and adapting to the disruptions a future outbreak could cause. There is even pending legislation, the Regulatory Improvement Act, that would implement a version of such a commission.
The idea is not a new one, nor is it partisan in nature. My colleague Wayne Crews and I have proposed something like this several times in the past. Former Sen. Phil Gramm, a Republican, also proposed a regulatory reduction commission in the early 1980s. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat, proposed a similar commission in legislation he introduced in 2017.
There are literally millions of regulatory restrictions on the books. Many of them are getting in the way of the coronavirus response. Others might get in the way of a response to a future pandemic in ways that aren’t obvious today, such as supply chain restrictions or product bans. Other rules simply slow economic growth, and one of the most effective ways to keep people resilient and safe is to be wealthy enough to do so. William Carrier likely had no idea his air conditioning invention would save millions of lives from deadly heat waves.
But Congress has neither the time nor the inclination to go through all of these rules, repeal the bad ones, and keep the useful ones. Many regulations also have their rent-seeking defenders, who will fight to keep in place rules that benefit them.
There was a similar problem with military bases back when the Cold War ended. Every member of Congress knew that the military didn’t need so many military bases anymore, but no particular member of Congress would vote to close the one in his or her district.
The solution was to outsource it. Congress created the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, composed of independent experts who compiled their recommendations and sent them to Congress in an all-in-one package.
The thinking was that lawmakers who did have closures in their district could vote for the needed closures and avoid the political pain by shifting the blame onto the commission. The idea worked, and it saved billions of dollars over multiple rounds.
For a #NeverNeeded regulatory version of BRAC, a few ground rules are important. First, no amendments should be allowed to the committee’s package. The vote must be straight up-or-down. The commission’s purpose is to avoid vote-trading and back-scratching. If amendments are allowed, the package would devolve into something similar to the coronavirus stimulus package, in which many provisions unrelated to responding to the virus were added, getting in the way of the work of the people in this crisis.
Second, the committee would be relatively small to reduce bargaining costs and make consensus easier to reach. It would also be bipartisan, so neither party can stack the deck when it is in power.
Third, the committee’s design has to account for the sheer size of the problem. The Code of Federal Regulations is more than 185,000 pages long, and grows every year. That is too much for even a well-staffed commission to handle at once. So it would tackle, say, five of the Code of Federal Regulations’s 50 titles per year in a 10-year rotation.
The first few years’ titles would be the ones most relevant to pandemic response: healthcare, pharmaceuticals, communications technologies, and trade barriers. But eventually, the whole Code of Federal Regulations should go under the microscope.
And because obsolete regulations rarely expire on their own, the #NeverNeeded regulatory reduction commission should be permanent. By the time it makes its next 10-year sweep, enough rules will have gone obsolete, or shown unintended consequences, to justify another trip through the code.
It is genuinely heartening to see governments of all levels and both parties working together to get rid of regulations that are preventing a full response to the coronavirus pandemic. But this is neither the first nor the last pandemic humanity will face. That is why a permanent institution-level response to never-needed regulations is important.
Ryan Young (@RegoftheDay) is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
