Fred Thompson Quotes

Applying cost-benefit analysis to regulation is no different than what most regulatory agencies do.

The process of getting regulations right is described publicly as far more political than in fact it is. It's essentially a legal and technical enterprise.

Is regulation per se bad? Is better regulation bad? I think better regulation is good for the business community, and I think that's something we should get together on.

Now in business we do a cost benefit analysis before we make policy changes. Washington should as well.

Give administration a chance to catch up with legislation.

The U. S. Code of Federal Regulations is over 170 thousand ages long.

Repealing rules therefore requires federal agencies to explain why the factual and scientific bases for the predicted benefits of their rules were wrong or no longer adequate to justify those rules.

As presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have recognized, the real question is whether regulations, whether new or old, are justified. That requires a careful analysis of their costs and their benefits.

In our administration, we're going to follow the law, and any policy that we move forward will fall well within the law and the Arizona Constitution.

In my view, it is unreasonable for EPA to exclude considerations of costs in determining whether it is 'appropriate' to impose significant new regulations on electric utilities.

Financial regulators should be particularly attentive to the financial consequences of their actions.

I'm not going to speculate about legislation that I haven't seen before.

The regulations keep on coming. And we are trying to make decisions that we will be happy with for decades.

People can make any political calculation they want. I make decisions what I think is in the best interest.

I certainly would not vote against a particular judge already in office because of a decision in a case. You may not agree with a judge's decision, but the judge must act within the law.

I can't ever remember being struck by lightning when making a big decision. It's always about taking in more and more data points and making tack adjustments as you figure it out. I call customers, suppliers, industry analysts and try to get as much information as possible.

In recent years, Republicans have argued that Congress is a more responsible policymaker than the executive branch. But when it comes to regulation, Congress is often much worse, and for just one reason: Executive agencies almost always focus on both costs and benefits, and Congress usually doesn't.

The FCC should obviously not propose bad rules that will be struck down; it should propose good rules that will be upheld.

I frankly think we in the financial service world believe we need appropriate kinds of regulations. No question about that. But when something like Dodd-Frank has been created, sort of in the mystery of night, it is a huge document. It's vast. It weighs about 10 pounds when I carry it around.

What one has created by regulation, one could address by regulation.

People are unwilling to enforce the laws on the books. Instead, they make more laws. Why can't we get this right?

At the end of the day, we must respect the rule of law in respective jurisdictions.

I don't want to, on behalf of the bureau, comment on Ohio law as opposed to Washington law as opposed to Colorado law.

The Pentagon should use data to guide financial decision-making.

I had spent the prior eight years working at my firm primarily representing big chemical companies, helping them comply with all the different state and federal laws.