Jamie Raskin: “I am afraid I remain unilluminated as to what that amendment will do. Apparently, the purpose is to require a more…”

“I am afraid I remain unilluminated as to what that amendment will do. Apparently, the purpose is to require a more detailed or technical description of the projected impact, or when an assessment required by the bill finds that there will be some inflationary effect. Again, this sounds like it is simply adding more bureaucracy, more paperwork with no return on investment for the taxpayer dollars that it would obviously take to conduct such an analysis. I mean, here we have gone for more than two centuries with apparently no economist arguing that what we really need to stop inflation is more reporting in the process of issuance of executive orders by Presidents of the United States. Suddenly, somebody had a great epiphany over there, without even a legislative hearing, that what was really needed was just for the President of the United States to append an inflationary statement to executive orders at the rate of a billion dollars, perhaps to be amended to a million dollars. Who knows if it is 50 million or 100 million, but it doesn't make any difference because there is no data behind any of it. There is no analysis. You may as well spin a wheel and pick a number at which a report is going to be compelled by the majority here for the so-called REIN IN Act, which stands for the Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation Act.…”