Latest news with #regulatoryreform
Japan Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Japan Times
Japan may allow bus and railway firms to enter ride-hailing business
A government panel proposed Wednesday that bus and railway operators be considered for entry into Japan's ride-hailing industry. The proposal was made by the Regulatory Reform Promotion Council, chaired by Tetsuro Tomita, adviser to East Japan Railway. At a meeting of the council on the day, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said: "Regulatory reforms are extremely important to overcome challenges caused by the population decline, realize 'regional revitalization 2.0' and shift to a value-adding economy. My cabinet will promptly approve a regulatory reform implementation plan." The Japanese approach to ride-hailing services, which began in April 2024, allows individual drivers to use their private vehicles to offer paid rides under the supervision of taxi companies. Bus and taxi operators have not been permitted to undertake this supervisory role. The council called for promoting ride-hailing services to address the nationwide transportation shortage and suggested a trial for bus and railway operators to identify potential safety and other issues. It also proposed system revisions to relax and clarify requirements for bus and railway operators to obtain taxi business licenses.
CBS News
6 days ago
- Business
- CBS News
Keller: Healey cutting some red tape for businesses but people on both sides want more
The opinions expressed below are Jon Keller's, not those of WBZ, CBS News or Paramount Global. Gov. Maura Healey is cutting red tape for businesses in Massachusetts, saying it will keep the state competitive but people from across the political spectrum want her to do more. The time and expense of dealing with bureaucratic red tape is a nightmare for many businesses. Eliminates old business regulations And on Wednesday, Healey fed a batch of state regulations to a paper shredder, saying it will help keep the state competitive. "Who doesn't love the striped pole outside a barbershop?" she said. "State law required a barbershop to actually hang a frickin' pole right outside the thing." No longer. Just one of scores of archaic business regulations being discarded by the Healey administration. The message: "These changes are going to save businesses time, they're going to save businesses money, and you know who's gonna benefit? Customers," said the governor. The shredding drew praise from some business leaders. "Your two predecessors - one Democrat [Deval Patrick], one Republican [Charlie Baker] - also announced regulatory reform efforts at the beginning of their terms. Sixteen years later nothing had occurred," recounted Jon Hurst, head of the Massachusetts Retailers Association. Groups want Healey to do more But to Chris Anderson, CEO of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, Healey's shredding party is "a good news story, however it's really marginal at best." He says it's far more important that Healey ease unemployment insurance costs and the burden on taxpayers of rising state spending. "What the governor should be leading right now with the support of many of those who care a lot about Massachusetts is to rein in the rate of growth on state spending to a rate that is more equivalent to what taxpayers are seeing their paychecks do from year to year," said Anderson. By contrast, Viviana Abreu-Hernandez, head of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, wants Healey, who backed the so-called Millionaire's Tax, to support economic growth with a new tax on foreign corporations doing business here. "If we have seen progressive taxation to bring enough revenue to the state to make significant investments in transportation and education, why are we not promoting more progressive taxation at the corporate level?" she asked. As she did when she ran the first time, Healey wants to find the middle ground that made Baker so popular, supporting some tax cuts and cutting red tape while also backing other tax hikes and expanding the budget. She hasn't said yet if she supports that new corporate tax, but with all sorts of red lights flashing on the state's fiscal dashboard, that will likely be an election-year moment of truth.
Times
21-05-2025
- Business
- Times
UK ‘needs regulatory overhaul' as firms complain of added burdens
The CBI has called for an overhaul of Britain's regulatory regime, with its president saying that 'we let complexity creep in, and courage leak out' of how businesses are overseen. Rupert Soames, CBI president, is expected to say that there needs to be a consensus between business and government to 'think more openly about risk appetite, while setting clear red lines for the protection of consumers and businesses'. In a speech he is due to give at a business event in London on Wednesday, Soames is planning to say that now is the right time for significant reform as the UK resets its relationship with the European Union. 'The UK has a golden opportunity to reduce both trade and regulatory barriers with the EU,
Bloomberg
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
The White House Got 'Overcriminalization' Right
I've been hard on President Donald Trump during these onerous early months of his second term, but when he's right, he's right. In particular, his executive order on the reduction of 'regulatory overcriminalization' pays welcome attention to a growing problem both parties have tended to ignore: the federal government's race toward making everyone a felon. Understand the point. Federal crimes are defined by Congress. Some are spelled out in the US Code. Most aren't. Instead, they're the result of rules adopted by federal agencies, which fill in the details themselves. Sounds reasonable, right? And it wouldn't be a bad idea ... if there weren't too many such administratively created rules and they were easy to find.
Forbes
07-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
House Reconciliation Bill Takes Aim At Regulation, But Needs Fixes
Congress must navigate labyrinthine budget reconciliation rules to enact meaningful regulatory ... More reforms. getty Congressional Republicans are moving one step closer to achieving their long-sought goal of overhauling the regulatory state. Tucked into the House Judiciary Committee's section of the GOP's reconciliation bill are two clever reforms. One creates automatic sunsets for federal rules and another incorporates a version of the REINS Act, which would require congressional approval for major regulations. These provisions attempt to strengthen legislative control over the administrative state. While the effort is admirable, one of the provisions could easily backfire, ironically making it harder to deregulate rather than easier. Let's start with the positive. The sunset provision would mandate that any rule currently in effect automatically expires five years after the law's enactment, unless affirmatively reauthorized by Congress. Roughly 20 percent of all rules would be up for review annually, and the bill gives agencies flexibility to determine which ones to review each year. This is a smart, comprehensive approach. However, it is also a one-time review, meaning once a rule is reviewed it won't be designated for sunset review again. Whether this reform survives the Senate's Byrd Rule, which bars provisions in reconciliation bills that are merely incidental to budgetary outcomes, is unclear. Like the REINS provision, the sunset review may need to be limited to rules with an impact on federal revenues or spending. Nevertheless, it's a commendable attempt to work within reconciliation's constraints. The bill's more controversial provision is the inclusion of a modified REINS Act. Traditionally, REINS (which stands for 'Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny') would require that any major rule, typically defined as having an economic impact of $100 million or more, receive an up-or-down vote from Congress before taking effect. In this iteration, the bill ties congressional approval to any 'major rule that increases revenue.' At first glance, that might seem like a clever workaround to meet the Byrd Rule's budgetary relevance requirement. But this approach has a serious flaw. As written, it could unintentionally subject nearly all significant deregulatory actions to congressional veto. That's because eliminating regulations spurs economic growth, which boosts federal income and corporate tax revenue indirectly. As a result, almost any sizeable deregulatory action could plausibly be considered a 'major rule that increases revenue.' Instead of clearing the way for deregulation, this REINS provision might ironically tie it up in red tape. Unless clarified, this structure threatens to invert the intended purpose of the REINS Act. Some past versions of REINS explicitly exempted deregulatory actions to avoid needlessly obstructing efforts to ease regulatory burdens. Fortunately, the fix could be relatively simple. The bill's language could be narrowed to cover only major rules that 'directly' increase revenue, such as through a 'new fee, tax, levy, or surcharge,' etc. This change would ensure the provision targets regulations with an intended purpose to bring in new funds, not regulations that result in incidental revenue gains from economic expansion or regulatory streamlining. Better yet, the REINS provision could maintain consideration of indirect revenue effects, but focus solely on rules that decrease revenues instead. This would be more in line with reconciliation's core fiscal objective of reducing the budget deficit, and it would likely mean Congress would have to approve most major regulations that add new regulatory burdens, since these will tend to indirectly reduce tax revenues as they reduce the size of the economy. To be clear, House Republicans deserve credit for creativity here. Attempting major regulatory reform while navigating the procedural labyrinth of budget reconciliation is no easy feat. The House has put forward a serious, substantive effort. The reforms may not all survive the Senate parliamentarian's scrutiny, and even then moderate votes will still be needed to ensure passage. But if this moment yields even incremental progress, it could mark a significant shift in the balance of regulatory power. Austin Pendleton smiles in a scene from the film 'Catch 22', 1970. Getty Images There's a touch of Catch-22 irony in all of this. The procedural rules that were created to keep the budget process in check are making regulatory reform more complicated. It's enough to make even committed reformers question whether meaningful change is possible within such a tangled web of constraints. However, the House has shown that there is still room for policy innovation. With some modest tweaks, the REINS provision could significantly move the needle in a better direction and become a truly effective tool for good governance. Meanwhile, the sunset provision would require a long-overdue review of outdated and unnecessary existing rules. For now, this bill represents a promising advance for regulatory reform. It is worthy of strong consideration.
