Sorry, "What it sounds like you're advocating for in your last bullet point" makes it sound like you think I recommend this outcome. I am merely illustrating the normal practice of unintended consequences. If one imposes a requirement that "for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated" upon a natural system that wishes to add regulations (as any government will tend to), all you get is convoluted regulations.

If you understood this to be a recommendation, you missed the point. I was saying that the requirement will merely result in pathological effects while failing to advance the intended outcome of "fewer regulations" (not even getting into whether that intended outcome is good policy!).

This is not so much a matter of "this policy is incorrect" as the science prof decrying a claim as "that isn't even wrong!" (because a scientific claim that is nonfalsifiable is even less useful than a falsifiable one that is proven to be incorrect, so a claim's incapacity to be shown wrong makes it worse than useless). This isn't going to have any effect in the stated direction (effectively less regulation), and will have a significant downside (bizarrely complicated regulations; complicated legislative procedures).

If this is legitimately the proposal, then this is what happens when an amateur who does not understand humans or politics decides to fight politics.