Some Dietary Suggestions For Our Regulators
The late Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman once said, “Given our monstrous, overgrown government structure, any three letters chosen at random would probably designate an agency or part of a department that could be profitably abolished.”
Friedman’s comment in mind, in this column we’re going to discuss nutrition from a regulatory perspective. No, this isn’t me advocating Michelle Obama‘s Nutritional Nanny State; although, much can be gleaned from obesity as the primary dietary problem plaguing our “under-privileged.” Our poor eat plenty of cake and this Marie Antoinette would like it to stop.
Gluttonous do-gooder statism spawned the electoral avalanche last November. Make no mistake, much good was achieved, but elections do little to stem the economically debilitating interference of government bureaucracy.
Government can do little to benefit the economy. Short of protecting our persons and property from fraud, brigandage and like abuses through an impartial application of the law, government can only impede the natural flow of commerce. Regulatory overstretch interferes with the function of markets, promotes increasing litigiousness and inhibits freedom.
Prohibitive rules and bureaucratic diktats lessen the number of profitable opportunities available and diminish the potential of those remaining avenues entrepreneurs and businessmen follow. Whatever governments subsidize, or incent through tax breaks and bailouts must harm other industries or the favored firm’s competitors. Businesses often focus more on securing political favors than satisfying customers.
Much “protective” regulation gets designed by the very industries being regulated for the competitive benefit of the established or politically connected. Lobbyists craft new regulations, bribe their way through passage and then don consultant hats to be remunerated generously for implementing pointless rules only they understand.
Other regulations are developed by power hungry bureaucrats inured to marketplace realities, all while resting under the cloak of civil service tenure. Few regulations actually protect our freedoms and most bear hefty compliance costs or reduce our opportunities.
Numerous commentators in the wake of President Obama’s call to “remove outdated and unnecessary regulations” have showcased the utter irrelevancy of OSHA or the counter productiveness of the EPA and a host of other bureaucracies. As Wayne Crews highlighted on these pages, over three thousand new regulatory decrees emanate from the sixty plus federal regulatory bodies each year. These rules weren’t put to a vote and aren’t subject to appeal.
It’s estimated that regulatory compliance costs $1.75 trillion annually thanks to a Federal Registry that has ballooned to 82,000 pages. Economically significant regulations, those costing an estimated $100 million or more in compliance, have grown faster still. Clinton’s term averaged 47 economically significant regulations annually. Bush: 48. Obama, reveres regulation: 66.
Many regulations serve ends opposite their intention. Labor policies like minimum wages or federal contracting rules requiring union pay diminish opportunities for work. Imposed rent controls usually lessen apartment availability while housing subsidies make homes more expensive. Washington’s forays into education, energy and healthcare have similarly dire records in terms of raising prices for consumers. It’s no coincidence those industries with the greatest political involvement suffer the highest cost escalation.
Historically, new presidential administrations rarely undo their predecessor’s intrusions. Carter added the departments of Energy and Education, neither of which can be justified in the Constitution. Both survived Reagan’s two terms even as he championed limited government. Reagan accomplished much, but failed to reverse the welfare state or expunge his predecessors’ incursions into healthcare, housing, transportation, education or energy.
Despite his reputation as a de-regulator and defender of laissez-faire, George W. Bush’s watch witnessed over thirty thousand regulatory decrees. Bush also rammed through such large scale legislative tinkering as Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Leviathan is bi-partisan.
Originally there were but four cabinet level posts. Today there are fifteen and seven other cabinet level posts. Now presidents don’t even bother with the formalities of cabinet positions, rather they appoint “czars.” As Washington’s power increases, accountability shrinks.
The myriad regulatory bodies spanning so many facets of life all answer to different congressional sub-committees. Each was originally some politician’s pet project or avenue to attracting a constituency. Each bureau head relishes the position. Unlike private actors that must generate revenue by pleasing customers, the sinecures just spend away. Why stay within budget when doing so might curtail your future allocations? Spend, spend and spend again. Who cares, it’s not their money.
Other than a few political appointments mainly there to dispense patronage like feudal lords, the bureaucracy remains long after any given president comes and goes. Few agencies adjust their behavior simply because say tens of millions of tea partiers have had enough. No, they laugh and decree CO2, our very exhalation, as a pollutant. Or they scheme to implement union card check rules that reek of corruption and betray democratic ideals.
When our elected officials do intervene, generally they issue new legislation on top of, or contrary to, existing laws. A few programs or agencies may periodically get eliminated, but on net, the proliferation of new programs and new bureaucracies is startling.
Washington needs to lose weight. We don’t need new programs. We don’t need more government solutions. We don’t need two parties both increasing government’s reach: one quickly and one cautiously. We can’t just slow government’s growth. No, we need to shed some government poundage.
The REINS Act requiring congressional approval for major regulation is a nice start although nifty acronyms always scare me. Coupled with a provision requiring new legislation to cite its constitutional justification might impose some dietary discipline.
Alas, as bloated as Washington has grown, a mere diet is insufficient. What’s required are radical amputations. Let’s sever the departments of Commerce (does little besides issue corporate welfare), Agriculture (ditto for farmers), Interior (sell the land, pay down debt and dissolve thyself), Labor (redundant), Transportation (redundant), Energy (drill, baby, drill), Education (whose kids are they?), HHS (why stop at extinguishing Obamacare?), HUD (haven’t they done enough damage?), the EPA (we’ll cover watermelons here soon), IRS (flat tax, or fair, but keep it simple) and please, please, kill the Fed.
Yes, Mr. President, we do need a machete.
Bill Flax
No comments:
Post a Comment