InsideSources

In the wake of the shocking suicides of celebrities like Anthony Bourdain and Kate Spade comes word that suicide rates are rising across the US.  According to new data from the CDC, suicide rates rose in every state except Nevada.  And one of the states with the highest increase in suicide deaths is New Hampshire.

According to the CDC, New Hampshire’s suicide rate jumped 48.3 percent from 1999 to 2016–the third-highest increase in the U.S.  Suicide is the second leading cause of death for young people in New Hampshire and eighth overall.

“Suicide rates in the United States have risen nearly 30% since 1999, and mental health conditions are one of several factors contributing to suicide,” the CDC report says. “Examining state-level trends in suicide and the multiple circumstances contributing to it can inform comprehensive state suicide prevention planning.”

New Hampshire does have a State Suicide Prevention Council and a State Suicide Prevention Plan. However, it also has one of America’s worst opioid-abuse rates and this may be contributing to the spike in suicide deaths.

According to the Washington Post, “the CDC has calculated that suicides from opioid overdoses nearly doubled between 1999 and 2014, and data from a 2014 national survey showed that individuals addicted to prescription opioids had a 40 percent to 60 percent higher risk of suicidal ideation. Habitual users of opioids were twice as likely to attempt suicide as people who did not use them.”

Will suicide become the “opioid addiction” of the next political cycle? President Trump, who focused on the opioid epidemic before any other national politician during the 2016 campaign, has already begun talking about suicide–particularly among veterans. But the issue is rarely mentioned in either the the New Hampshire governor’s race or the campaigns for New Hampshire’s two  congressional seats.

That may all change soon.

The “Politics and Eggs” breakfast at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics is one of the compulsory events in Granite State politics for anyone considering a presidential run.  Conservative journalist and national leader of the #NeverTrump movement, Bill Kristol, will be making an appearance–and firing up the 2020 rumor mill–on Wednesday, May 23rd.

NHJournal’s Michael Graham caught up with Kristol at one of his Harvard Yard haunts on the eve of his speech for a quick Q&A:

MG: My first question for you is this: Is Bill Kristol coming to “Politics and Eggs” to formally announce his candidacy in the 2020 presidential race?

BK:  It’s tempting, it’s tempting. But then I’d be laughed out of New Hampshire and I’d be slipping back across the border to Massachusetts in about 12 minutes. So I think I won’t do that.

I’m just talking about my analysis of the political situation. It’s always great to be in New Hampshire because people here are so interested in national politics, and they follow it much more closely than almost any other state because they’re so conscious of their “First in the Nation” primary. And I do think the fact that independents can vote in either primary–and so many New Hampshire voters are independents–means they tend to follow both parties. In some states the Republicans follow Republican stories, and the Democrats have the Democratic stories. In New Hampshire, everyone follows everything.

MG: Which potential 2020 candidate best matches the mood of the Democratic electorate?

BK:  I think there are several moods going at once, which is why it’s complicated. There’s obviously a ‘We hate, loathe and despise Trump and we will reward the person who hates, loathes and despises him the most’ [mood].  There’s also a ‘Look, we’ve got a win’ [mood], with Democrats saying ‘We cannot afford to lose to this guy and, incidentally, we lost because we were out of touch with parts of middle America. Some of those concerns were legitimate, and some of those concerns are traditional Democratic concerns–stagnant wages and stuff like that–and so we need somebody who can speak to them.’

That leads you in two pretty different directions.

The conventional wisdom among Republicans in Washington is the Left has all the energy. Everything’s going Left. The empirical evidence so far in the primaries is a little mixed, I would say. Some moderates have won primaries. Some Lefties have won some primaries, and some have just been extremely close like the Nebraska [NE-2] primary. So I’m sort of open-minded about that debate on the Democratic side.

MG: What about Republicans?  Trump’s approval is back in the upper 80s, approaching 90 percent among Republicans. Of those Republicans who are dissatisfied–maybe they’re reluctant Trump supporters, whatever. Are they angry at Trump, or do the just want their party to go in a different direction?

BK:  I think Trump supporters–let’s just say it’s 80, 85 percent of the Republicans–are split into two categories: Half of them, some 40 percent of the Republican Party, are Trump loyalists. They believe in him. They are proud to have voted for Him. They hate his enemies and they like the fact that he’s shaking things up.  But about half of Trump supporters are reluctant Trump supporters. They voted for someone else in the primary–Bush or Cruz or Rubio.  They mostly voted for Trump in the general election because of Hillary and judges and so forth.

They support some of the things Trump has done, but they’re not Trump loyalists and I think they’re open to the following argument, one which you can’t really make now, you have to make it the day after the midterms:

It goes like this: ‘You voted for Trump. We’re not gonna criticize that. You support a lot of things he does. You think a lot of the criticisms of him are unfair. We’re not going to quarrel with that.  But–do you really want to do this for another four years?

It’s a little crazy. It’s a little chaotic. He comes with some downside risks. In foreign policy and and other things, maybe you could just like pocket the gains and get a more normal, so to speak,  Republican or Conservative.’

I think that message would have–could have– more appeal after Election Day this year. Right now it sounds like, ‘Well, you’re just anti-Trump. We’ve got to rally to Trump, we’ve got to defeat the Democrats.’  But I think November 7th [the day after the midterms], everything changes.  Because the question becomes not a retrospective question of were you right to vote for trump or his critics, or ‘what about Hillary?’ It becomes a prospective question. What do you want going forward?

MG: Last question: The Democratic ticket that you think Republicans should be the most afraid of in 2020?

BK: That’s a good question. These things are actually harder to predict.  I’m inclined to give the conventional answer, which I think is right, which is the more moderate the candidate Democrats nominate, the easier it is to win back some Republican voters and independents.  I guess I have the kind of conventional view that that’s the most dangerous thing for the Republicans.

But you know, sometimes history fools you.  Everyone thought Reagan would be easier to defeat than a more moderate Republican.  Take Elizabeth Warren. [Republicans think] That’d be great. We can demonize her. She’s scary. She’s left wing.

Well, I don’t know.  Maybe she could run a campaign that was pretty intelligent and get the best of both worlds: The Hillary Clinton appeal, first woman president; And some of the Sanders energy. Look, she’s a Harvard law professor. She’s not crazy.

It could be like Obama. [Independent voters saying] ‘She’s a little more liberal that I like, but she comes from modest origins.’ So I think [my fellow conservatives] may underrate Warren a little bit.

On June 5th, 2017, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan joined their fellow Democrats in a unanimous vote reaffirming their commitment to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.  That act also passed with massive Democratic support (the only Senate Democrat to vote against it was former Klansman Robert Byrd of West Virginia) and was signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton.

But on Monday, when the Shaheen/Hassan-supported law’s mandate that “the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem” was finally put into effect,  Sen. Shaheen was silent. Sen. Hassan said nothing–despite repeated requests for comment.  The top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer of New York, released a subdued statement “applauding President Trump” for the embassy move. But from New Hampshire–nothing. Why?

It hasn’t always been “no comment” from the New Hampshire delegation. When President Trump announced his intentions regarding the US Embassy in December, Sen. Shaheen criticized the proposal, saying it was “harmful to both U.S. and Israeli interests” and “moves all parties further away from a peaceful solution.”

Is that still her position?  You’ll have to ask her–though you might get some insights from J Street as well. They are one of Sen. Shaheen’s top contributors, donating more than $112,000 since 2013.  And they’ve given more than $200,000 to Sen. Hassan as well.

J Street has been described as a “liberal fringe group” by some, and it certainly has a pro-Left, pro-Obama, anti-Netanyahu view of Middle East policy.  Unsurprisingly, they oppose the embassy’s move.

But what about Sens. Shaheen and Hassan?  Do they regret their support for the Jerusalem Embassy Act less than a year ago? Has something changed?

Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta announced the release of a report Thursday aimed at fixing the skills gap through apprenticeship programs.

President Donald Trump has looked to address the skills gap problem by reforming training and apprenticeships. The Department of Labor (DOL) was instructed in an executive order last year to set up a task force to look into the issue. The task force submitted a report to the president with some recommendations on how to expand apprenticeships.

The DOL task force includes members from business, labor, trade groups, educational institutions, and public officials – who all approved of the report in their final meeting. The report specifically provides a strategy to create more apprenticeships across the country through an industry recognized apprenticeship model.

“President Trump’s Administration is committed to bridging the skills gap by creating apprenticeships that reflect the needs of jobs creators,” Acosta said in a statement. “The Task Force established through the President’s Executive Order brought together varied perspectives to create a strategy for expanding apprenticeships across all industries.”

President Trump has made workers a central focus of his administration since the beginning. The skills gap issue reflects a major problem with the workforce which has created both joblessness and job openings. The issue is many companies are having trouble finding workers with the skills they actually need. Technology is making the issue more prominent by changing the way industries operate, and the skills they need.

“The National Restaurant Association is honored to represent America’s restaurant and hospitality industry on the White House Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion,” National Restaurant Association President Dawn Sweeney said in a statement provided to InsideSources. “We are thankful Secretary Alexander Acosta and the Trump Administration provided us a seat at the table to discuss the many ways our industry is creating advancement opportunities through apprenticeship for Americans from all backgrounds.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics found in a 2015 report that the country is projected to produce one million fewer technical workers than are needed over the next decade. PNC Financial Services found in a report last year that the demand for STEM skills is going to explode over the next few years. The report also found that 38 percent of global manufacturers are having difficulty finding workers.

The DOL notes that when apprenticeship programs are implemented effectively, they can provide workers with a fulfilling career path by providing pay, skills development, and mentoring. The employer is benefited too as they can obtain the skills they need by training someone.

The task force divided itself into four subgroups which explored education and credentialing, attracting businesses, expanding access, and administrative strategies. The report recommends that access to training programs that are affordable be expanded and new standards be applied to programs to ensure they are educational. The report also outlines ways to work with businesses and other groups to improve or launch apprenticeship programs.

“Apprenticeships give students proven and meaningful ways to gain skills and kickstart fulfilling careers,” Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said in a statement. “I’m excited by the proposals the Task Force on Apprenticeships is putting forward to the President. We must continue our efforts to strengthen workforce readiness and increase the number of pathways available to students after high school.”

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in a 2011 report that the federal government spends about $18 billion annually on job training programs. Former President Barack Obama, for instance, invested $90 million into a federal program focused exclusively on apprenticeships.

Follow Connor on Twitter

She says she’s not running.

He’s in the middle of a “pay-offs to porn stars” story that would kill any conventional politician.

And yet the (very) early tea leaves from the “First in the Nation” primary state already point to the match-up many pundits dream of:

President Donald Trump vs. Sen. Elizabeth Warren in 2020.

Let’s take a moment to insert all the standard disclaimers: We haven’t even gotten to the midterms yet, two years is a political eternity, Sen. Warren could (theoretically) lose her re-election bid in November, President Trump could (less theoretically) be unable to seek re-election due to incarceration, etc.  The fact remains that the new poll from Suffolk University aligns with the emerging conventional wisdom:  Democrats want Liz Warren and the GOP is going to stick with Donald Trump.

In his analysis of the numbers. Suffolk University’s David Paleologos notes how Sen. Warren’s strength draws from virtually every other major Democratic candidate.

“When we first asked likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire who they would prefer—and we left Liz Warren’s name off the list— we got the expected results:  Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders well ahead of the pack of list seven possibilities:

Biden 30%

Sanders 25%

Booker 10%

Patrick 8%

Harris 6%

Gillibrand 3%

McAuliffe 2%

“Then we introduced Sen. Warren’s name to the mix,” Paleologos told NHJournal, “and she cleared the field:

Warren 26%

Biden 20%

Sanders 13%

Booker 8%

Harris 4%

Patrick 4%

Gillibrand 2%

McAuliffe 2%

According to Paleologos, what makes Liz Warren’s position so strong is that “looking at the cross tabs, what we see is that all of the candidates lose something to Elizabeth Warren. Most of the candidates lose about one in five core supporters between scenario one without Warren and scenario two. And [former Massachusetts governor) Deval Patrick and Bernie Sanders lose a very big share of their voters.”

If Warren were merely strong in New Hampshire because of geography, the implications would be as significant. Instead, her strength is ideological–she’s the first choice (by far) of the voters looking for a nominee on the left end of the Democrats’ spectrum.  Plus, the fact that a third of Biden voters would jump on her bandwagon shows she’s strong with more old-school Democrats as well.

“On the progressive side, it appears voters are saying ‘Sanders had his chance,'” Paleologos suggests. “Elizabeth Warren is a little bit younger, a woman who has been carrying the challenge to big business, big dollars in politics.  And you may have some Hillary Clinton supporters who, if given the choice, either gravitate to Biden or to Warren, but not to Sanders.”

And that’s how Sen. Warren wins the nomination: Progressive voters, a few establishment voters, and some Hillary voters still smarting from the Bernie vs. Hillary fallout.  What about President Trump?

Two months ago, a New Hampshire poll gave him a narrow six-point lead over Gov. John Kasich. In the new Suffolk poll, he’s crushing all comers:

Trump beats Kasich 68-23 percent;

Trump beats Sen Jeff Flake 72-15 percent;

Trump beats Sen. Marco Rubio 65-23 percent;

Trump beats Mitt Romney 63-28 percent.

Trump lost New Hampshire, though narrowly, to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It’s a state more known for it’s moderation than it’s bombast, where candidates with names like Bush, McCain and Romney tend to do well. For Trump to be dominating like this, Paleologos notes, is a sign that he’s in no real danger within his party.

Once again: It’s early, it’s politics and it’s Trump.  But if you are hoping for a Trump vs. Warren throwdown in 2020, we are well on our way.

Bill Kristol has a message for Iowa: In the current political climate, expect the unexpected. Something as unexpected as, say, a presidential bid by a prominent member of the conservative media like Kristol?

With his upcoming visit on Wednesday to Iowa’s Cornell College in Mount Vernon, on the heels of a planned appearance two weeks ago at a prominent political event in New Hampshire (postponed due to weather), Kristol is certainly creating a stir.

The influential conservative commentator and co-founder of The Weekly Standard will be a guest of Cornell College as part of its Roe Howard Freedom Lecture series, and will discuss “American Politics in the Age of Trump,” and what’s ahead in 2020. Two weeks ago, Kristol was scheduled to speak at “Politics and Eggs,” a forum hosted by St. Anselm College’s Institute of Politics that has become a mandatory stop on the POTUS campaign speaking circuit.  While Krisol’s visit was postponed by a Nor’easter, Sen. Jeff Flake appeared at the event just two days later.

Visits to New Hampshire and Iowa leading up to midterms are usually a telltale sign of someone with presidential aspirations, but Kristol told InsideSources that he’s not currently planning for a 2020 run, rather looking to “encourage the people of Iowa,” about the state and future of America’s politics ahead of the 2020 presidential discussion.

“One of my messages will be that this is such an unusual time that people should expect the unexpected in 2020,” Kristol told InsideSources, “which is interesting given the premise that the incumbent always gets renominated, I think that [assumption is] in question.”

Kristol is considered one of the originators of the #NeverTrump movement and has continued to affirm his anger with the president during his time in office.  Kristol believes that America’s politics are extremely fluid and observers are underestimating the degree to which the country is in “uncharted waters.”

Though he describes today’s politics as fluid, one thing Kristol believes is certain: Trump has led the GOP astray.

“I don’t think the future of the Republican Party is to be an older and whiter party or nativist and sort of disdainful of every new group and new thought,” Kristol said. “You can win an election or two with that, but it’s ultimately a losing proposition.”

Kristol believes the GOP has some work to do in order to attract not only younger voters who may be turned away by Trump, but also a more diverse group of voters when it comes to race and culture. Kristol believes that Trump is causing the party “significant damage” among young voters. While Kristol himself found the promise of the Republican Party as a young adult, he doesn’t believe the party is appealing to 23-year-olds today.

One of the challenges facing the Republican Party is the staunch divide between its base and the rest of the GOP. Kristol argues that Trump was able to win over a large portion of voters to the GOP with his ability to express anger over the issues that were worrying these groups of people. But Trump has since failed to keep his promises to them.

“There’s a real sense of alienation from the establishment, from the coast and D.C.,” Kristol said. “Whether Trump’s going to solve that or whether Trump’s just going to accentuate them depends, and people would argue he’s failing to address their problems, that’s a big question, and I think people could react in very different ways to another Trump presidency in that respect. I do think the next candidate from both parties actually is going to have to think through real policies, real proposals that deal with people’s anxieties. A lot of those anxieties are legitimate. It doesn’t mean the solutions they’ve attempted to embrace haven’t been good ones, but if you don’t have any solution, people will embrace bad solutions.”

In Iowa, 51.1 percent of the voters embraced Trump in 2016.  According to a February 2018 poll by Des Moines Register, Trump’s approval now hovers around  44 percent. Assuming the GOP base stays loyal to Trump and he’s re-nominated for president in 2020, Kristol believes the party will be in a different state than it is currently, having doubled down on Trump. In that event, while Kristol said that the Republican Party wouldn’t then be one he’d be comfortable being a part of, he doesn’t think that there’s an immediate need for the party to split, or create a third party.

“I think the first effort would be to save the Republican Party or revive the Republican Party,” Kristol said. “It’s a huge party and has a distinguished heritage. It would be foolish to walk away from it and say ‘it’s hopeless.’ But it may turn out for people like me if Trump is nominated, maybe re-elected, I wouldn’t necessarily want to stay in the party. And we’ll have to make up our own minds then.”

In fact, Kristol believes that the 2020 election will be one in which a third-party candidate will have a decent shot of securing a large swath of voters, something rarely been seen in American politics. That being said, Kristol believes that the Republican Party has strong leaders and is encouraged by the quality of Republicans who are running for office. While he’s not pessimistic about the future of the GOP, he does believe the challenges of keeping the party together are real.

Challenges that someone like Kristol could solve? Expecting the unexpected?

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka argued Thursday that job training alone isn’t enough while discussing workers who have been displaced by technology.

The U.S. economy has changed rapidly in recent years as technology continues to innovate at an ever-increasing speed. But caught in the middle of that change are workers with skills that are being replaced with robots and computers. President Donald Trump has looked to strengthen and expand training programs to help ensure workers get skills that are still in demand.

Trumka addressed the issue while speaking during a panel discussion at the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas. He argued that training alone isn’t enough and that more needs to be done to ensure workers aren’t hurt by these new technologies. He added that unions already train many workers but that hasn’t fully addressed the issue.

“We train people, that’s what we do,” Trumka said during the discussion. “That’s not the issue, training them to do what? And if in fact the logical conclusion is technology shrinks all the jobs so that there are not enough jobs for those in the society, that training only makes you, first it makes you, in my instance, you’re an unemployed miner, then you get trained to be a computer programmer, so then I was an unemployed computer programmer.”

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in a 2011 report that the federal government spends about $18 billion annually on job training programs. Former President Barack Obama, for instance, invested $90 million into a federal program focused exclusively on apprenticeships – an area the current administration has been looking to expand.

Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta has been at the forefront as the administration has looked to expand training opportunities. He has argued that the increasing reliance on a college degree has resulted in a younger workforce with a narrower skill set that leaves many good jobs unfilled. The administration has looked towards apprenticeship programs to provide more diverse skills.

“We have to look at the jobs and how we are going to deploy or share the benefits of that technology,” Trumka said. “It cannot continue to go to the little group at the top while the rest of the people get less and less.”

Acosta has clarified that he isn’t opposed to people getting a college degree – but rather that people need to dispel the notion that a liberal arts education is the only pathway to a good job. He argued during a congressional hearing Nov. 15 that the solution is to instead encourage people to pursue job training that matches their interests and talents.

President Donald Trump has taken a particular interest in apprenticeship programs as a way to train the workforce. He signed an executive order last year to encourage the Department of Labor to find ways to expand those programs. Acosta has since led those efforts by visiting successful programs, funding research, and meeting with experts.

Trump has overseen steady labor market gains since entering office over a year ago. But issues like wage growth and the skills gap remain a concern that his administration is looking to address. Acosta has argued that part of the solution is to streamline the process by which the government certifies apprenticeship programs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recently reported that job openings currently stand at 5.8 million. The number of unemployed persons per job opening has steadily declined since it jumped dramatically in response to the last recession almost a decade ago. But there are still millions of working-age adults without work.

Economists have looked at various solutions to potentially address the skills gap problem. Some believe the skills gap is occurring because people are not being provided needed skills through school and training. Others assert the issue is the result of certain industries not paying adequate wages to attract skilled talent.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Teamsters President Jim Hoffa had strong words for lawmakers Friday after they failed to pass legislation that would have help immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protects certain immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children. Congress was unable to pass legislation that would have protected these immigrants, known as Dreamers, from the looming threat of deportation.

Former President Barack Obama implemented the initiative through executive action in 2012. President Donald Trump began phasing out the initiative in the later months of last year – leaving lawmakers until March 5 to pass something. Congress tried and failed to do just that Thursday.

“The issue of immigration is not always easy and undoubtedly will be closely parsed by those in Congress,” Hoffa said in a statement. “However, immigrant kids in good standing should not be penalized because elected officials refuse to get their act together. They deserve an opportunity to continue to live their lives with their loved ones in their adopted home country.”

The Senate considered a few ideas that would have implemented a pathway to citizenship for almost two million Dreamers. The president actively opposed the main bipartisan proposal – while supporting another that would have also curtailed legal immigration. In the end, both bills failed to receive enough support.

“This nation is the only home these children have ever known,” Hoffa said. “Yet too many lawmakers, most of whom repeatedly make a point of saying they stand up for families, are turning their backs on them in their time of need. That’s not right and is plain un-American.”

Trump has promised to better enforce immigration law and pursue policies that protect domestic workers from unfair foreign competition. The administration has said it will prioritize criminal aliens, but critics have expressed concern over mass deportation – which would include illegal immigrants that are otherwise acting lawfully.

“For centuries, this country has served as a beacon of hope to millions across the globe who sought opportunity and refuge,” Hoffa said. “We mustn’t allow that light to be snuffed out by callous members of Congress seeking to politicize the fate of those who had no choice in coming to this country. These children are our children now.”

The Teamsters union isn’t alone in its opposition to the program potentially being eliminated. The AFL-CIO claimed that the initiative and the temporary protected status program are essential in fighting for better wages and working conditions. Unite Here has also supported efforts to protect Dreamers – while being at the forefront of helping another immigrant group that has lived in the United States legally for years after being displaced from its home country.

The Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people might be eligible for DACA when it was first started. Republicans and other critics denounced it as a severe overreach of executive powers. Obama also attempted to expand the program to millions of more recipients later on but the move was rejected by the courts.

Follow Connor on Twitter

President Donald Trump has embarked on an ambitious journey to rollback federal regulations. But the impact of that effort may be overblown by both supporters and critics.

Trump and his administration have undoubtedly done a lot to advance that regulatory agenda. Federal agencies over the last year have worked to roll back regulations – while the president has taken executive actions to upend other federal rules. The intended goal is to boost economic growth by reducing burdens that employers face.

The American Action Forum (AAF) found Oct. 3 that the administration has saved $560 million annually by cutting regulations. But that represents only a portion of possible savings through regulatory cuts. The administration is still working to scrap or rewrite a long list of other regulations.

“I think the accomplishments to date are probably not as significant as either side says,” Brookings Institution senior fellow Philip Wallach told InsideSources. “But they may be well on their way to making the changes that will be pretty significant. The regulatory process is slow and cumbersome by design.”

Wallach adds that there has been a fairly modest easing of the regulatory compliance burdens for some industries. He notes the full impact of those actions will likely not be felt straightaway – like when it comes to the environment. So even when a regulation is implemented or undone, the implications might not be felt for many years.

Both supporters and critics may have an incentive to exaggerate the deregulatory effort because it supports their side of the issue. Republicans can claim they are doing a lot to help businesses and workers while Democrats can argue about how much they have undermined worker rights and environmental protections.

“I would say there hasn’t been as much deregulation as the administration has portrayed,” AAF regulatory policy director Dan Bosch told InsideSources. “But to the same token, not a lot has changed in terms of, we haven’t seen the sky falling from a public health and environmental safety perspective. So I think both sides are over-characterizing it. But the process has certainly been noticeable, especially in D.C.”

Federal regulations often require a lengthy process that involves a public comment period to either implement or undo. The process could take a year or more depending on the regulation. That means it could take years for the administration to roll back many of the regulations it is hoping to.

“The regulatory process usually takes a year or two once they make a proposal,” Bosch said. “That’s something you’d expect to see, the deregulatory actions, next year. The Clean Power Plan will likely be revealed next year. The Waters of the United States rule, the overtime rule.”

Federal regulations aren’t the only rules and restrictions that the administration has worked to upend. The process to reverse a federal rule tends to be as easy or difficult as it is to implement. Former President Barack Obama implemented much of his agenda through executive actions – making it fairly easy to scrap.

“I think the impact so far has been mostly chipping away a lot of regulations from the Obama administration while they work them through the regulatory process to change them,” Bosch said. “So we haven’t seen a lot of substantive changes to regulations per se.”

Republicans and the business community have long argued regulations have become overly cumbersome. The administration has focused on labor policy, consumer rights, healthcare, and the environment in its deregulatory push.  The administration is optimistic the approach will help lift the burden on employers – with the hopes they’ll invest more time and money back into their businesses and employees.

The administration is also facing legal challenges over its push to deregulate. Lawsuits have the potential to make the process to implement or remove regulations significantly longer. A court could delay a regulatory change to give time for a proper ruling or it could rule against it outright.

Follow Connor on Twitter