It isn’t unconstitutional, as he is not “ rewriting laws by personal fiat rather than through a constitutional process,” he’s asking Congress to pass laws that achieve this end, through a constitutional process. He’s asking them to reduce the total number of regulations: that is a good thing.
So you believe we can never have too many regulations, and that none of the thousands currently in place can ever be repealed? How hard can it be to find two worthless current regulations for every new one?
That “Imagine a doctor declaring we can’t find a cure for cancer unless we abandon vaccines for polio and smallpox” is too stupid to even call it an analogy.
Since you bring health workers into it, they might tell you, if you asked, that they have to make harder decisions every day: “Do I save the Mother or the Child?” or sometimes they have to make harrowing decisions in triage to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties. The ones they prioritise should be the ones with the best chance of survival, who will die if not attended to quickly. The ones who need help, but won’t die soon while waiting are next, and the ones who will die regardless of any possible intervention go to the end of the queue.
We ask paramedics and nurses to make these decisions every day: do you really think our lawmakers are so deficient in intelligence that can’t find two worthless regulations for every new one they want to introduce?
If nothing else, it asks them to at least think about how they are strangling enterprise in red tape, and to try to intrude less on individual freedoms. Compared to what we ask nurses to do in Triage, this is easy.
At some point after all the low hanging fruit have been cleared, the order will be withdrawn or replaced with a 1 for 1 rule: simple.