The Wall Street Journal: on Government Reform

Al Gore: Regulatory style: smaller & smarter govt, but stronger regs

Bush, a frequent critic of heavy-handedness in government, would take a less-is-better stance through his appointees, stressing flexibility and voluntary actions by industry and the states. Gore, while touting the importance of a “smaller, smarter government,“ would push for more muscular regulation.

Critics worry that each man, in his own way, would go too far. Bush’s ”notion that government should get out of the way is the Ronald Reagan mantra,“ says one analyst, referring to Reagan’s aggressively antiregulatory stance. For his part, Gore ”shows an instinct to intervene in the marketplace,“ says another economist, who insists such intervention only makes problems worse.

Buddy Roemer: Won Governor & House seat with voluntary contribution limit

The other potential candidates, "they've got PACs and they've got airplanes," Roemer told the crowd. "All I've got is me and you. I think it's enough."

Roemer has gotten by before without big money. He served four terms in the House in the 1980s and was one of the few members of Congress to decline PAC money. He voluntarily set strict campaign-contribution limits during his successful run for governor in 1987.

Donald Trump: Reject the elite election system; infuse popular will

Let me ask America a question: How has the "system" been working out for you and your family? I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people.

The only antidote to decades of ruinous rule by a small handful of elites is a bold infusion of popular will. On every major issue affecting this country, the people are right and the governing elite are wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.

Donald Trump: Against funding post office due to mail-in ballots

[In response], "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said the U.S. Postal Service is suspending operational changes, like removing mail processing equipment and collection boxes, until after the November election," the Wall Street Journal reports. From a statement: "To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded."

George W. Bush: Regulatory style: like Reagan, get government out of the way

Bush, a frequent critic of heavy-handedness in government, would take a less-is-better stance through his appointees, stressing flexibility and voluntary actions by industry and the states. Gore, while touting the importance of a "smaller, smarter government," would push for more muscular regulation.

Critics worry that each man, in his own way, would go too far. Bush's "notion that government should get out of the way is the Ronald Reagan mantra," says one analyst, referring to Reagan's aggressively antiregulatory stance. For his part, Gore "shows an instinct to intervene in the marketplace," says another economist, who insists such intervention only makes problems worse.

Hillary Clinton: Expand executive action on immigration, guns, & corporations

It was the third major policy area where she vowed executive action, anticipating that a Republican Congress won't back her proposals. In each case, she would go beyond what the Obama administration has done.

She has promised to expand President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, shielding more people in the U.S. from deportation, even as the existing policy is being challenged in the courts.

Clinton also has said she would try to rewrite firearms regulations so more sellers are required to conduct background checks on potential gun buyers. There is scant support for new gun restrictions among Republicans.

Ted Cruz: Obama dishonors Constitution by bypassing Congress

Yet rather than honor this duty, Pres. Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying and waiving portions of the laws he is charged to enforce. When Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On many of those policy issues, reasonable minds can disagree. Obama may be right that some of those laws should be changed. But the typical way to voice that policy disagreement, for the preceding 43 presidents, has been to work with Congress to change the law. If the president cannot persuade Congress, then the next step is to take the case to the American people

Ted Cruz: Obama's executive orders is open door for future lawlessness

But this should not be a partisan issue. In time, the country will have another president from another party. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.

That would be wrong--and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.

Tim Pawlenty: Eliminate the Post Office

To help balance the budget, Pawlenty would cap federal spending at 18% of GDP. Since spending is projected to be about 24% of GDP this year, reaching Pawlenty's target would require about $1.1 trillion in annual spending cuts. He provided no clear roadmap of how to reach that level of spending cuts, but said he would apply a "Google Test": if a good or service can be found on the Internet, the government probably shouldn't be doing it. But Pawlenty's suggestion to eliminate federal ownership of the Postal Service , Amtrak, and the Government Printing Office would have limited effect on the deficit. The postal service is part of the federal government, but the Treasury doesn't fund it.