Big government
Our federal government has grown to be huge and continues to grow virtually unabated. There used to be a thing known as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution that has been completely ignored as the federal government has grown larger.
It seems there is what I call an entitlement mentality out there that thinks the government is the solution to any problem. I've seen this when I worked with people wanting the police to install their child restraints, and departments assigning sworn officers to do so. I've raised two kids, and somehow both survived despite no one from the government telling me how to put them into a car seat. As a police supervisor, it always irked me that I'd have three officers for patrol response and yet we always had a child seat specialist. What is more important- calls for service like crashes or burglaries or showing someone how to install their car seat, especially seeing as how the car seat comes with instructions from the manufacturer?
Regulations, specifically automakers
There has been quite a bit reported in the press about the government loans for automakers, specifically GM and Chrysler. What is not reported (at least to the same degree) is the excessive regulations these car makers face when building cars. Think about this:
in 1965, you could buy a new full size Chevrolet sedan for around $2,700 (all pricing from NADA or comparable sources). I could not find annual fatal crash data for 1965. In 1975, a full size Chevrolet was about $4,500. The number of people killed on the highways in 1975 were 44,525. In 2005, the number killed were 43,443.
In 2005, this same "full size" (not really since everything had been downsized) Chevrolet cost around $25,000 or nearly 10 times as much as the same car in 1965.
How have some other things compared? In 1967, the average
Here is a graph showing the income adjusted for 2003 dollars:
If the other prices had kept up with the cost of car making, you'd have an average income of nearly $68,000 and gas would cost about $3.00 per gallon.
My point here is that despite any number of rules and regulation, people have died, are dying, and will continue to die in car wrecks. What is wrong with keeping the safety standards at a reasonable level? Despite them being one of the best protection devices available, many people don't wear seat belts. You cannot protect people from themselves. You can spend a whole lot of money trying to do so, but at the end of the year there will still be thousands dead.
As an automotive enthusiast, there is a saying for repairs that you can have it:
Fast, cheap, or good. Pick two. Likewise, with vehicles, you can either drive a heavier vehicle that will better protect you in a crash that gets poor gas mileage, or a lighter vehicle that does not do so well in a crash but gets outstanding mileage. A recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report noted the mini and micro cars did not hold up well in crashes and were expensive to repair. If the current trend of excess regulation of the auto industry continues (and with government ownership of so much of the automakers it undoubtedly will), we will be seeing higher fatality rates due to these lightweight vehicles that get great MPG ratings.
The Community Reinvestment Act or CRA
This federal program was enacted in 1977. One of the concepts here is to "evaluate" how lending institutions receiving FDIC insurance were performing: Does the institution offer credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations) in all communities in which it takes deposits?
The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution. An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. While the law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA, certainly many in the banking industry did not wish to violate what they perceived as a federal regulation when making loans.
For another point of view on this situation:
The CRA Scam and Its Defenders
Regardless of political opinion on the matter, it is yet more federal regulation on top of federal regulation.
Communication taxes and fees
Have you looked at your home or business phone bill recently? Ever wonder what the repetitive local and long distance "Universal service fund" taxes are for? They are listed as being there to help keep local service rates affordable to schools, libraries, and low-income families. This is in effect another form of welfare, I am helping to pay someone else's bill whether I want to or not. In my case, my local phone service is around $62 per month. Of this, about 27% or $13 are taxes and fees. The phone company prefers to call some things "fees" although they are a direct result of federal regulation. If the government "regulates" something and by so doing a business incurs an extra cost that must be made up by the customer, this is a prima facie example of a hidden tax.
The EPA
The EPA also has regulated the emissions and later fuel mileage requirements of new cars. The concept is that the emissions are ruining the atmosphere. Recently even more stringent regulations were proposed for fuel economy.
Contained In a relatively brief 570 page PDF, the EPA now wants to regulate and tax livestock emissions. Fortunately, there is still some common sense within the report (highlighted at the end of the copied section):
Regulatory Burden on Agriculture
In its draft ANPR, EPA contemplates regulating agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the three primary CAA programs—National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”), New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”), or Hazardous Air Pollutant (“HAP”) standards. Like the Act itself, these programs were neither designed for, nor are they suitable to, regulation of greenhouse gases from
agricultural sources. If agricultural producers were covered under such complex regulatory schemes, most (except perhaps the largest operations) would be ill-equipped to bear the costly burdens of compliance, and many would likely cease farming altogether.
The two common features of each CAA program are permitting and control requirements:
Permitting: Operators who are subject to Title V permitting requirements— regardless of which CAA program is applicable—are required to obtain a permit in order to operate. These Title V permits are subject to a public notice and comment period and contain detailed requirements for emission estimation, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. Title V permits may also contain control requirements that limit the operation of a facility. If a producer desired, or were compelled by changed circumstances (e.g., changing market demand, weather events, or pest infestation) to 67 modify his operational plans, he would be required to first seek a permit modification from EPA or the State.
If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved.
Federal Department of Education (FDOE)
I find it laughable that we have a government bureaucracy here in addition to similar functioning organizations at the state and local levels. This is a shining example of how our government has grown well beyond any reasonable need. We pump billions into education each year- the FDOE budget alone is over 46 billion annually (2010 update: $77 billion). What are we getting for our money?
Anyone browsing the Internet will find absolutely atrocious use of the English language where younger people (school age to recent graduates) gather. While it is always impossible to determine who is on the other keyboard, in many cases by the nature of the blog or forum, one expects a certain age group to be prevalent. I've noticed many cannot determine when to use there vs. their or they're. The same thing happens with your and you're. Our technology has increased so greatly that modern browsers like Mozilla Firefox have a built-in spell checking ability- suspected misspelled words are underlined in red.
I also see a similar problem with math. On an automotive forum I belong to, a member was selling a car. In the course of the listing and replies, four prices were discussed. I suggested he sell it for the average price (which I had obtained by adding all 4 and dividing by 4). I was told I had too much time on my hands to be able to figure that out. Number averaging is a basic skill that was taught in elementary school when I was a child.
How is it that semi-literate/intelligent people are graduating from high school?
What is the answer?
This portion of my blog could be a full time job in and of itself. If you have made it this far, you may be asking what is the answer? It is in two parts-
Short term, we need to pass reasonable tax legislation and do away with the IRS and the numerous "hidden" federal taxes like the ones documented in the phone bill above.
Long term, the size and scope of the federal government must be returned to Constitutional levels as enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. While there is always talk of doing this, I do not see this answer coming anytime soon. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, though. I'll be doing my part starting with my county commission meetings.
