I'm the summarizer for my group this week for a couple of questions. Notably, the problem on regulating. The group pretty much all jumped on the party line that having someone review regulators regulations was an unqualified good thing™. One of the more lucid responses read as such:
His comment is reasonable – have an independent party discuss and review regulations with regulators before the rules are implemented. This would allow for certain regulations to be examined from new perspectives and would hopefully point out strengths and weaknesses in the regulations. I imagine that Senator Durbin, a Democrat, was concerned about this because the Republican White House was doing the “independent” review. It would seem that Senator Durbin’s real concern was not the examination of regulations per se, but rather the examination of regulations by Republicans with whom he disagreed.
So, my summary read like this:
The group felt it is a good idea to have a political operative looking for the unintended consequences of regulators actions. If we can have some regulation of regulations to reduce unintended consequences, we are all better off.
I think I neatly summarized the responses and yet still, my own thoughts on the matter might possibly come through…