To the astonishment of many, President Barack Obama has adopted another reasonable, centrist position in endorsing an end to federal regulations and rules that impede job creation and economic growth in "Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System" (op-ed, Jan. 18).

If our leader is serious, I suggest he tackle the most gigantic, most stifling federal mandate, one which impedes growth as well as the ability of the American people to be content, positive and worry-free—the tens of thousands of convoluted, incomprehensible pages of law and regulations inflicted on us through the ever-burgeoning federal tax code.

A solitary consumption tax would be the best alternative to the income tax which penalizes wage earners, investors and savers. But in lieu of that, a simple, flat income tax would be an enormous improvement over what we are saddled with today.

Oren M. Spiegler

Upper Saint Clair, Pa.

President Obama was certainly correct that "a lack of proper oversight . . . nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets." The pervasive, chronic and systemic regulatory lapses by all of the federal financial regulators of housing finance have been well documented. The first lesson should be that federal regulation and protection have proved to be poor substitutes for market discipline. The second lesson is that political oversight undermined, rather than demanded, sound prudential regulation, especially with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If the president is serious about making the economy "more competitive," he should propose eliminating these two state-sponsored oligopolies.

Kevin Villani

La Jolla, Calif.

I see not one word about reward for entrepreneurial risk, or about freedom to reinvest more after-tax profits.

Walt Brewer

Lockport, N.Y.

How interesting that President Obama thinks that since the Food and Drug Administration considers that saccharin is safe, then the Environmental Protection Agency should not regulate it as a hazardous waste.

Perhaps, since the FDA also considers carbon dioxide safe for soft drinks, maybe the president will join with the Republicans in Congress to reverse his EPA's decision to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act, as a threat to the public's welfare.

Steve Milloy

Potomac, Md.

The president talks a good game about regulations. Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Just look at what the administration is trying to accomplish by regulatory fiat. President Obama was unable to pass cap-and-trade legislation, so he has the EPA regulate CO2.

When a federal court decided the administration didn't have the authority to impose "net neutrality," he had the FCC redefine the Internet as a "telecom service," which it will now regulate. When he realized that the union "card check" legislation would go nowhere, he used executive orders and recess appointments to the NLRB to facilitate rule change.

The need for passing congressional legislation to implement policy is a necessary constitutional constraint on governing. After all, we have a president, not a king. It is an excellent article, but with this president especially, it's actions not words that count.

William L. Gensert

Bronx, N.Y.

Kudos to our president for issuing the executive order to governmental agencies requiring them to find an appropriate regulatory balance.

My fear, however, is that the president's order has no teeth. Can we realistically expect these government agencies, on their own, to clean up their regulatory slates? History does not support this notion. The agencies certainly need to be a part of the process, but the president needs a more robust process that includes independent players if he truly wants to achieve the goals he so eloquently puts before us in his opinion piece.

Bob Maynard

Kailua, Hawaii

It's not clear what steps will be taken to conduct this regulatory review. A quick and inexpensive method would be to simply ask the regulated communities which regulations are in conflict, are not worth the cost or are just plain dumb. They already know them all too well and I'm sure would be happy to point them out.

Jay Haines

Weston, Mass.

Which anachronistic departments have outlived their usefulness? My guess is the president's answer is "none."

John L. Sorg

McCordsville, Ind.

Why work with labor unions regarding fuel economy standards? What do labor unions bring to the table regarding rules pertaining to emissions? I applaud our president's efforts and want him, and all of us, to succeed. But working with unions, now a very minor part of the private work force, on issues outside of their purview seems more like a 20th-century solution for a 21st-century problem.

John Rosenberg

Stamford, Conn.

The mindset of every career government regulator is that his role is an indispensable part of the U.S. economy. Despite the president's executive order to reduce and eliminate "bad" regulations and add "good" regulations, there will be an extreme expansion of all regulations.

What regulatory department will admit its budget should be slashed, its rules are the "bad" ones, or its department's jobs are essentially unnecessary?

Joe Boccuzzi

Stamford, Conn.

Before signing the executive order to reform the federal regulatory process, the president should have reviewed the utterly unprecedented recent decision by the EPA to revoke a permit previously issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. This was the first time in its history that the EPA had ever revoked a previously issued permit. Far beyond the immediate impact of the decision to halt mountaintop coal mining, the EPA's "ends-justify-the-means" action sends notice to every business throughout the U.S. economy that federal permits involving environmental impacts can be overturned or revoked in the future.

The private sector needs to know that when the federal government gives its word, it means it.

John Sitilides

McLean, Va.