Cromnibus: A Preview Of What’s To Come

Posted by | December 15, 2014 12:00 | Filed under: Contributors Opinion Politics Stuart Shapiro

Republish
Reprint


OK, that’s a picture of a cronut, not a cromnibus, but there is no question about which one is tastier.  My latest column talks about why we had better get used to the type of horse-trading represented in the cromnibus though.

The debate over the cromnibus will be replayed on a larger scale from October through December 2015 (the budget debate in 2016 will take place in the shadow of presidential and congressional elections, which will make it very different). Republicans will try to roll back as many regulations as possible, but their leadership is unlikely to risk a politically damaging shutdown. Obama will be trying to protect as many of his regulations as possible, using the threat of a veto and a resulting shutdown to do so. But as this week showed, he will tolerate some regulatory rollbacks in order to keep the government running. Both sides will have to carefully judge how much political support they have for their positions.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro

Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.

12 responses to Cromnibus: A Preview Of What’s To Come

  1. ChrisVosburg December 16th, 2014 at 15:12

    S it shouldn’t be a total loss, at least I now know what a cronut looks like.

  2. ChrisVosburg December 16th, 2014 at 16:12

    S it shouldn’t be a total loss, at least I now know what a cronut looks like.

  3. amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 06:51

    A 1000 plus page bill nobody read (as usual) chocked full of favors to lobbyists.
    The only one who didn’t get an earmark or favor were the taxpayers.
    Both sides must be proud indeed.

    • OldLefty December 18th, 2014 at 07:10

      Just waiting for the ‘Americans Gamble In Los Vegas, While The Banking Industry Bails Out Their Losses’ bill.

      • amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 08:20

        I think that was in there, the derivatives bets can now be covered by the FDIC.
        If they can stretch the definition of a bank to include investment houses who gamble on derivatives how hard would it be to include Caesars palace.
        The only difference between wall street and Vegas, the player (taxpayer/depositor) has a remote chance of winning.
        And can cut their losses and walk away.
        .
        The one I loved was where they raised the limits that individuals could give to parties from a mere 97k to over 700k.
        It should have been called the incumbent protection clause.

  4. amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 07:51

    A 1000 plus page bill nobody read (as usual) chocked full of favors to lobbyists.
    The only one who didn’t get an earmark or favor were the taxpayers.
    Both sides must be proud indeed.

    • OldLefty December 18th, 2014 at 08:10

      Just waiting for the ‘Americans Gamble In Los Vegas, While The Banking Industry Bails Out Their Losses’ bill.

      • amongoose December 18th, 2014 at 09:20

        I think that was in there, the derivatives bets can now be covered by the FDIC.
        If they can stretch the definition of a bank to include investment houses who gamble on derivatives how hard would it be to include Caesars palace.
        The only difference between wall street and Vegas, the player (taxpayer/depositor) has a remote chance of winning.
        And can cut their losses and walk away.
        .
        The one I loved was where they raised the limits that individuals could give to parties from a mere 97k to over 700k.
        It should have been called the incumbent protection clause.

Leave a Reply