Lamar Smith isn’t against damaging regulations that increase compliance costs, he is against those regulations being put in place by “unaccountable agency officials” instead of him.

Doesn’t mean routine, but an excellent score for an expert:
5. Golf the number of strokes established as a skillful score for any given hole or for a whole course

From my extensive knowledge of golf. I even know what a “niblick” is.

I have this amusing mental image of Mike, with his bizarre left bangs only haircut, in his prison inmate shirt, frothing at the mouth and rapidly trying to play “pin the tail on the donkey” over all of this.

As you sow, you shall reap. You sowed like crazy, now you can enjoy the harvest of fine laws.

Knowing a ballpark figure for total economy as 12 trillion, that’s pretty steep indeed, isn’t it? Near a sixth of the economy goes to unproductive regulation? Hmm…

So I looked this up (you can skip to my next para):
http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/853/2016
“The report divides federal regulations into four categories: economic, environmental, tax compliance, OSHHS (occupational safety and health, and homeland security). The estimate of economic regulations is obtained by regressing the Regulatory Quality Index on gross domestic product per capita, and includes labor market economic regulations that were included in the workplace regulation column in previous reports. Second, gaps in the baseline are filled with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates. The costs of workplace regulations are based on the updated estimates from the study by Joseph Johnson (2005). Homeland security cost estimates are based on OMB reports, as are environmental regulations estimates. Tax compliance costs, finally, are based on the 2005 report from the Tax Foundation. The allocation of costs across employment classes was made possible by use of Census data published by the Office of Advocacy.”

Picking most likely inflation point: what’s meant by “tax compliance” and where is it from? — “Tax compliance costs, finally, are based on the 2005 report from the Tax Foundation.”

So what’s that? — Appears to be a lair of neo-cons!
http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/5.html
“Scott A. Hodge is president of the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., and is recognized as one of Washington’s innovative thinkers on tax policy, the federal budget and government spending. Over the past 20 years Scott has been a leader in many successful efforts to change public policy. During the 1990s, he led the campaign to include the $500 per-child credit and capital gains tax cuts in the Contract with America. These tax cuts were the eventual centerpieces of the 1997 tax bill and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.” — He’s also big in Heritage Foundation.

Sum: yeah, I’d agree too much regulation, but behind the SBA report is rabid corporatism with hard-core fascist motives.

As for Mike’s main thrust: Yawn. It’s not even contradictory for the particular politician, they’re always for big business, element in common here.