Government Regulation: A good idea gone very far wrong.

The trouble with government regulation of the market is that it prohibits capitalistic acts between consenting adults.

Robert Nozick

Regulations grow at the same rate as weeds.

Norman Ralph Augustine

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.

Winston Churchill

We are stymied by regulations, limited choice and the threat of litigation.

Arthur Erickson

Throughout his life, Ronald Reagan believed America is capable of great things and its people could and would lead the way if left unburdened by taxation and regulation.

William L Jenkins

There is no such thing as free regulation.

John Hutton

Why has it seemed that the only way to protect the environment is with heavy-handed government regulation?

Gary Norton

We should favor innovation and freedom over regulation.

George Allen

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Ronald Reagan

OK. So I overdid the quotes. Sue me. You have probably guessed by now that I believe our Federal Government over regulates our society (and in California by our State government, as well). However, you will notice that I didn’t say we “are on a slippery slope.” What is it with politicians that they, to a man or woman, embrace a phrase and keep using it until the population simply wants to puke? Other than this paragraph you will NEVER read the phrase “slippery slope” in one of my postings. And what’s up with this “boots on the ground” stupidity. Every politician in Washington uses this phrase in every second sentence (even when they are giving speeches at garden parties). When did we decide we no longer had “soldiers” or “American fighting men and women?” Now we have “boots.” I think NATO should air drop about 400,000 empty “boots” in Libya. When Gaddafi’s troops see them on the “ground” they will immediately surrender. No muss, no fuss. OK. So I’m ranting. I just needed to get that off my chest.

[From the Heritage Foundation: Red Tape Rises Again: Cost of Regulation Reaches $1.75 Trillion]. The best estimates of the total cost of the regulatory burden come from a series of reports commissioned by the Small Business Administration. Their estimate as of September 2010 was that rules and regulations cost $1.75 trillion (the “T” word). More astounding is that the figure had increased from $1.1 trillion in just 5 years – an increase of 37%. If we added that figure to our GDP it would constitute an increase of 12%. At our current rate of growth based on the first quarter of 2011 it will take our economy nearly seven years to grow that 12%. Looked at from a different perspective $1.75 trillion is greater than the respective GDPs of Brazil, Spain, Canada, Russia, India, or South Korea. It is approximately the combined GDPs of Switzerland, Poland, Belgium, and Sweden. Ergo, $1.75 trillion is a lot of money. Still, as daunting as these numbers are, they do not accurately describe the current economic consequence of over-regulation.

Why do I say that a study this recent is out of date? It is because under the Obama administration there has been a veritable deluge of regulation. [From: Obama’s Regulatory Tsunami More Destructive than Taxes, by Lurita Doan]. “You can argue that some of these new regulations are not destructive to our economy, but just look at the number of regulations. Their range, their grasp and their intrusiveness into American life is staggering.”  Of course President Obama’s administration is far from through with its regulatory barrage. New guidelines are being drafted and more bureaus are being added. ObamaCare alone will produce enough new regulations to sink a worthy craft (regulations that will, on their own, govern 18% of our GDP). These new regulations will be piled atop the regulations his administration has already produced. They haven’t missed a single month since President Obama was inaugurated.

January 2009-Housing Voucher regulations

February 2009-PLA (Project Labor Agreements) forcing government contractors to provide bids that show union labor as a component.

March 2009-Stem Cell regulations

April 2009-Hedge Fund regulations

May 2009-EPA issues new fuel standards

June 2009-Regulations issued to influence Venture Capital activity

July 2009-EPA Training requirements for workers on building renovation projects

August 2009-E-Rule (electronic rulemaking) regulation

September 2009-EPA issues ozone pollution regulations

October 2009-Greenhouse gas reporting requirements

November 2009-Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) regulations

December 2009-Natural Gas Pipeline safety regulations

January 2010-Visa regulations

February 2010-Organic Foods Program regulations

March 2010-Credit Card regulations

April 2010-Residential Water Heaters regulations

May 2010-Coal Ash regulations

June 2010-Truth in lending regulations

July 2010-Revised ADA regulations

August 2010-Bedbugs and Pesticide regulations

September 2010-Portland Cement regulations

October 2010-Truck regulations

November 2010-Perfume / Fragrance regulations

December 2010-CAFE standards, MPG regulations

January 2011-New Cuba Travel regulations

February 2011-“Conscience protection” rules for health care providers

March 2011-Menu and vending machine rules issued

April 2011-Tougher Painkiller regulations

No one is so foolhardy to suggest that the United States should be without regulations. But it is important to remember that “regulations,” like viruses, tend to reproduce at a rapid rate. This is the mechanism by which the Federal government insinuates itself into every facet of American life.

Well, we need to “protect” Americans from every source of evil! Don’t we? My answer is an emphatic “no.” Even your mother could not protect you from every harm as a child – and you can be sure that no one was more dedicated to the task than she. Food safety is an excellent example. If we need regulations of any kind then certainly food safety must be near to the top of the list. Sounds logical to me. The above list of new regulations does not include the hurricane of new regulations that will follow the recent passage of the Food Safety Bill. You may be interested in reading a single “rule” from this new onslaught of regulations. Did you ever consider making a new margarine (footnote 1)? Well, better follow the “rules.” And don’t forget to label it (footnote 2).

[From: Safe Food at Any Cost, by Paul Schwennesen]. “Isn’t food safety a pressing concern, a public-health problem we can’t afford to fool around with? Problem is, the problem isn’t. Emotional rants that “thousands die every year!” do not help us grapple with the scope or magnitude of this alleged threat. Let’s try some perspective: According to the Centers for Disease Control, the estimated number of deaths caused by food borne illness falls between 5,000 and 8,000 a year (down a substantial 35 percent, by the way, from ten years ago). Sounds pretty bad, eh? Time to call in the Salmonella SWAT team? Before you do, consider that the same number of people die by intentionally strangling themselves each year. …The same numbers of people die from Alzheimer’s in California alone each year. …Four times that number die each year accidentally falling off of things. Moreover, 70 percent of food borne illness (and presumably deaths) results from poor food-handling procedures during preparation, not from poor food-production practices. The number of people we’re attempting to save with this kind of legislation, in a cosmic feat of irony, is significantly lower than the number of people who die each year from malnutrition (known in the business as “starving”).” By the by, Paul Schwennesen owned and operated a small meat-packing company that he closed because increasing regulations made his business unprofitable. Many of his friends in the business suffered the same fate.

The result of this new series of regulations will be to reduce the number of companies processing foods. Thus, an unintended consequence of this legislation is to put more production into fewer hands. As Tom Philpott writes, “The real systematic risk of the food system is the exponential expansion of hazard that comes from concentrating huge amounts of production in relatively small spaces.“ Thus, well-intentioned expansions of “governance” may result in more, not less, risk. The 2009 recall of E. coli tainted beef involved 380,000 pounds. Why was the number so astronomically large, ask you? Because the producer was one of the mega-producers created by the ever-increasing stream of regulations that drive smaller producers from the market place, say I.

[From: Ag industry decries over-regulation Leaders testify before Congressional panel in Salinas, by Jim Johnson]. Excessive and unfair regulation is hampering the agricultural industry’s economic viability and capacity for creating jobs, said a panel of agri-business leaders testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee is investigating the “regulatory impediments to job creation.” The growers and processors blasted the practice of environmental groups suing the EPA to force tougher regulations through legal settlements without input from the agriculture industry. This results in a “de facto rule-making process that is harmful to farming and of questionable benefit to the environment.” I ask; Would it be unreasonable to require a cost-benefit analysis before regulations are adopted by oversight agencies? I am not seeking to nullify all regulation, but shouldn’t each new regulation need to prove it has some chance of being efficacious and not deleterious?

Am I overstating the case? I do have a tendency to do that from time to time. In fact, it is worse than I have described. Currently, for example, farmers are required to prove they aren’t polluting rather than reacting to proved pollution. Does that make sense?

I focused on “food” in this posting (I must have been hungry). However, I could have chosen from innumerable industries. The government is “in our face” more today than ever before. My message is the same as it is in every posting on this blog: GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG. What we have is self-sustaining madness that will grow without foreseeable end. Big government doesn’t work and it doesn’t protect us. Worse, because they make us think we are “protected,” we lowly citizens drop our guard. That’s when real disasters happen.

Roy Filly

Footnote 1:

[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 21, Volume 2] [Revised as of April 1, 2010] [CITE: 21CFR166] TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS CHAPTER I–FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SUBCHAPTER B–FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION PART 166 MARGARINE

Subpart B–Requirements for Specific Standardized Margarine

Sec. 166.110 Margarine. (a) Description. Margarine (or oleomargarine) is the food in plastic form or liquid emulsion, containing not less than 80 percent fat determined by the method prescribed in “Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,” 13th Ed. (1980), section 16.206, “Indirect Method,” under the heading “Fat (47)–Official Final Action,” which is incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.Margarine contains only safe and suitable ingredients, as defined in 130.3(d) of this chapter. It is produced from one or more of the optional ingredients in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and one or more of the optional ingredients in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to which may be added one or more of the optional ingredients in paragraph (b) of this section. Margarine contains vitamin A as provided for in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.(1) Edible fats and/or oils, or mixtures of these, whose origin is vegetable or rendered animal carcass fats, or any form of oil from a marine species that has been affirmed as GRAS or listed as a food additive for this use, any or all of which may have been subjected to an accepted process of physico-chemical modification. They may contain small amounts of other lipids, such as phosphatides or unsaponifiable constituents, and of free fatty acids naturally present in the fat or oil.(2) One or more of the following aqueous phase ingredients:(i) Water and/or milk and/or milk products.(ii) Suitable edible protein including, but not limited to, the liquid, condensed, or dry form of whey, whey modified by the reduction of lactose and/or minerals, nonlactose containing whey components, albumin, casein, caseinate, vegetable proteins, or soy protein isolate, in amounts not greater than reasonably required to accomplish the desired effect.(iii) Any mixture of two or more of the articles named under paragraphs (a)(2) (i) and (ii) of this section.(iv) The ingredients in paragraphs (a)(2) (i), (ii), and (iii) of this section shall be pasteurized and then may be subjected to the action of harmless bacterial starters. One or more of the articles designated in paragraphs (a)(2) (i), (ii), and (iii) of this section is intimately mixed with the edible fat and/or ingredients to form a solidified or liquid emulsion.(3) Vitamin A in such quantity that the finished margarine contains not less than 15,000 international units per pound. (b) Optional ingredients. (1) Vitamin D in such quantity that the finished oleomargarine contains not less than 1,500 international units of vitamin D per pound. (2) Salt (sodium chloride); potassium chloride for dietary margarine or oleomargarine. (3) Nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners. (4) Emulsifiers. (5) Preservatives including but not limited to the following within these maximum amounts in percent by weight of the finished food: Sorbic acid, benzoic acid and their sodium, potassium, and calcium salts, individually, 0.1 percent, or in combination, 0.2 percent, expressed as the acids; calcium disodium EDTA, 0.0075 percent; propyl, octyl, and dodecyl gallates, BHT, BHA, ascorbyl palmitate, ascorbyl stearate, all individually or in combination, 0.02 percent; stearyl citrate, 0.15 percent; isopropyl citrate mixture, 0.02 percent. (6) Color additives. For the purpose of this subparagraph, provitamin A (beta-carotene) shall be deemed to be a color additive. (7) Flavoring substances. If the flavoring ingredients impart to the food a flavor other than in semblance of butter, the characterizing flavor shall be declared as part of the name of the food in accordance with 101.22 of this chapter. (8) Acidulants. (9) Alkalizers. (c) Nomenclature. The name of the food for which a definition and standard of identity are prescribed in this section is “margarine” or “oleomargarine”. (d) Label declaration. Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter. For the purposes of this section the use of the term “milk” unqualified means milk from cows. If any milk other than cow’s milk is used in whole or in part, the animal source shall be identified in conjunction with the word milk in the ingredient statement. Colored margarine shall be subject to the provisions of section 407 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended.

Footnote 2:

[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 21, Volume 2] [Revised as of April 1, 2010] [CITE: 21CFR101.2]

TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS

CHAPTER I–FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBCHAPTER B–FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

PART 101 — FOOD LABELING

Subpart A–General Provisions

Sec. 101.2 Information panel of package form food.

(a) The terminformation panel as it applies to packaged food means that part of the label immediately contiguous and to the right of the principal display panel as observed by an individual facing the principal display panel with the following exceptions:(1) If the part of the label immediately contiguous and to the right of the principal display panel is too small to accommodate the necessary information or is otherwise unusable label space, e.g., folded flaps or can ends, the panel immediately contiguous and to the right of this part of the label may be used.(2) If the package has one or more alternate principal display panels, the information panel is immediately contiguous and to the right of any principal display panel.(3) If the top of the container is the principal display panel and the package has no alternate principal display panel, the information panel is any panel adjacent to the principal display panel.(b) All information required to appear on the label of any package of food under 101.4, 101.5, 101.8, 101.9, 101.13, 101.17, 101.36, subpart D of part 101, and part 105 of this chapter shall appear either on the principal display panel or on the information panel, unless otherwise specified by regulations in this chapter. (c) All information appearing on the principal display panel or the information panel pursuant to this section shall appear prominently and conspicuously, but in no case may the letters and/or numbers be less than one-sixteenth inch in height unless an exemption pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section is established. The requirements for conspicuousness and legibility shall include the specifications of 101.105(h) (1) and (2) and 101.15. (1)(i) Soft drinks packaged in bottles manufactured before October 31, 1975 shall be exempt from the requirements prescribed by this section to the extent that information which is blown, lithographed, or formed onto the surface of the bottle is exempt from the size and placement requirements of this section. (ii) Soft drinks packaged in bottles shall be exempt from the size and placement requirements prescribed by this section if all of the following conditions are met: (A) If the soft drink is packaged in a bottle bearing a paper, plastic foam jacket, or foil label, or is packaged in a nonreusable bottle bearing a label lithographed onto the surface of the bottle or is packaged in metal cans, the product shall not be exempt from any requirement of this section other than the exemptions created by 1.24(a)(5) (ii) and (v) of this chapter and the label shall bear all required information in the specified minimum type size, except the label will not be required to bear the information required by 101.5 if this information appears on the bottle closure or on the lid of the can in a type size not less than one-sixteenth inch in height, or if embossed on the lid of the can in a type size not less than one-eighth inch in height. (B) If the soft drink is packaged in a bottle which does not bear a paper, plastic foam jacket or foil label, or is packaged in a reusable bottle bearing a label lithographed onto the surface of the bottle: (1 ) Neither the bottle nor the closure is required to bear nutrition labeling in compliance with 101.9, except that any multiunit retail package in which it is contained shall bear nutrition labeling if required by 101.9; and any vending machine in which it is contained shall bear nutrition labeling if nutrition labeling is not present on the bottle or closure, if required by 101.9. (2 ) All other information pursuant to this section shall appear on the top of the bottle closure prominently and conspicuously in letters and/or numbers no less than one thirty-second inch in height, except that if the information required by 101.5 is placed on the side of the closure in accordance with 1.24(a)(5)(ii) of this chapter, such information shall appear in letters and/or numbers no less than one-sixteenth inch in height. (3 ) Upon the petition of any interested person demonstrating that the bottle closure is too small to accommodate this information, the Commissioner may by regulation establish an alternative method of disseminating such information. Information appearing on the closure shall appear in the following priority: (i ) The statement of ingredients. (ii ) The name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. (iii ) The statement of identity. (2) Individual serving-size packages of food served with meals in restaurants, institutions, and on board passenger carriers, and not intended for sale at retail, are exempt from type-size requirements of this paragraph, provided: (i) The package has a total area of 3 square inches or less available to bear labeling; (ii) There is insufficient area on the package available to print all required information in a type size of1/16inch in height; (iii) The information required by paragraph (b) of this section appears on the label in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, except that the type size is not less than1/32inch in height. (d)(1) Except as provided by 101.9(j)(13) and (j)(17) and 101.36(i)(2) and (i)(5), all information required to appear on the principal display panel or on the information panel under this section shall appear on the same panel unless there is insufficient space. In determining the sufficiency of the available space, except as provided by 101.9(j)(17) and 101.36(i)(5), any vignettes, designs, and other nonmandatory label information shall not be considered. If there is insufficient space for all of this information to appear on a single panel, it may be divided between these two panels, except that the information required under any given section or part shall all appear on the same panel. A food whose label is required to bear the ingredient statement on the principal display panel may bear all other information specified in paragraph (b) of this section on the information panel. (2) Any food, not otherwise exempted in this section, if packaged in a container consisting of a separate lid and body, and bearing nutrition labeling pursuant to 101.9, and if the lid qualifies for and is designed to serve as a principal display panel, shall be exempt from the placement requirements of this section in the following respects: (i) The name and place of business information required by 101.5 shall not be required on the body of the container if this information appears on the lid in accordance with this section. (ii) The nutrition information required by 101.9 shall not be required on the lid if this information appears on the container body in accordance with this section. (iii) The statement of ingredients required by 101.4 shall not be required on the lid if this information appears on the container body in accordance with this section. Further, the statement of ingredients is not required on the container body if this information appears on the lid in accordance with this section. (e) All information appearing on the information panel pursuant to this section shall appear in one place without other intervening material. (f) If the label of any package of food is too small to accommodate all of the information required by 101.4, 101.5, 101.8, 101.9, 101.13, 101.17, 101.36, subpart D of part 101, and part 105 of this chapter, the Commissioner may establish by regulation an acceptable alternative method of disseminating such information to the public, e.g., a type size smaller than one-sixteenth inch in height, or labeling attached to or inserted in the package or available at the point of purchase. A petition requesting such a regulation, as an amendment to this paragraph, shall be submitted under part 10 of this chapter.