Removing rules that work?

Home|Opinion|Letters to the Editor|Removing rules that work?

Re: Trump’s exec order

President Donald Trump signed an executive order that will please those supporters that are anti-government and anti-law. Trump’s order says that for every new regulation, two must be eliminated.

What if Wyoming or the city or even your home had such a policy? What if you had to follow such an order when it comes to the rules you set for your children? For instance, you say to your child, “Now that you are older and hanging with your friends your mother and I decided that you need a new rule; you have to be in by suppertime. Now we must eliminate two old rules. You can throw things in the house and jump on the furniture.” If you are a parent, you know that when your children grow and mature, when conditions change, you need new rules. That doesn’t eliminate the need for any old rules. Rules become obsolete only if the reason for them is also obsolete.

When the Town of Dayton decided to set up a court, my wife volunteered to transcribe ordinances for the judge. There was a law on the books that required drivers to send someone ahead waving a lantern when crossing a bridge at night. That ordinance could have been eliminated with no ill effect. That is not like an anti-pollution law to restore a poisoned lake that’s vegetation, fish, and wildlife were dead or diseased. If the regulations succeed in restoring the health of the lake, you shouldn’t remove the regulations that work. The lake would simply die again. On the other hand, you can happily and sensibly eliminate the “no fishing”, “no swimming”, and “no boating” signs and ordinances that were made necessary by the pollution.

Mel Logan

Sheridan

By | 2017-04-28T20:27:11+00:00 April 29th, 2017|

About the Author: