Category Archives: regulation

The Economist: Too Much Regulation

Sounds like writers for The Economist have been reading some of CEI’s regulatory research. From this week’s magazine:

Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the shrewd can abuse with impunity.

The other force that makes American laws complex is lobbying. The government’s drive to micromanage so many activities creates a huge incentive for interest groups to push for special favours. When a bill is hundreds of pages long, it is not hard for congressmen to slip in clauses that benefit their chums and campaign donors. The health-care bill included tons of favours for the pushy. Congress’s last, failed attempt to regulate greenhouse gases was even worse.

There are lots of ways to simplify the 165,000-page Code of Federal Regulations. All new rules should have automatic 5-year sunsets, renewable by a Congressional vote. An annual bipartisan commission should comb through the books and create a package of obsolete or harmful rules for Congress to repeal. Congress should vote on all “economically significant” regulations, a la the REINS Act.

The list goes on. The sooner Congress and the President get cracking on enacting these reforms, the better off the economy — and unemployment numbers — will be.

Regulation, Jobs, and Creating Wealth

Here’s a letter I recently sent to Businessweek:

Editor, Businessweek:

Elizabeth Dwoskin and Mark Drajem’s February 9 article “Regulations Create Jobs, Too” points out that regulation doesn’t so much create jobs as redirect them somewhere else.

Lobbying, politicking, and special favors are part and parcel of the regulatory process. The result is that many regulation-created jobs are not created on the merits. If a job requires a regulation to be created, that usually means the job it replaced created more value for consumers. Regulations may not destroy jobs on net, but they do destroy wealth.

Markets respect no special interest; agencies like the EPA and SEC exist solely to cater to them. This is wonderful for politically connected companies like Breen Energy Solutions and Nol-Tec Systems, but the rest of us are poorer for it.

Ryan Young
Fellow in Regulatory Studies
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C.

King James I and Sporting Regulations

Regulators usually use a light touch on the world of sport. There is the occasional grandstanding Congressional hearing about steroids, and the odd murmur of antitrust violations. But that’s usually the extent of it. Things were different in medieval Scotland:

James I legislated in 1428 in an attempt to stop people from playing football because it distracted them from archery practice[.]

-Allan Massie, The Royal Stuarts: A History of the Family that Shaped Britain location 281 of the Kindle edition.

Business before pleasure, gentlemen. Or else.

Worth noting: this is James I of Scotland, not the King James who commissioned the famous Bible translation. That man was King James I of England, and simultaneously King James VI of Scotland. Nearly two centuries separated them, though both were members of the Stuart royal family.

CEI Podcast for February 2, 2012: The FDA’s Latest Power Grab

Have a listen here.

Fellow in Consumer Policy Studies Michelle Minton breaks down the FDA’s behind-the-scenes push to regulate dietary supplements nearly as strictly as prescription drugs.

Regulation Roundup

-The Anacostia Cab Association is a D.C.-based company that hires willing employees to give rides to willing customers. The city is cracking down on them at their competitors’ behest.

-Both U.S. Senate candidates in Massachussets want to strictly limit political speech. They believe their campaigns should have free rein, but they don’t want other people to have the ability to publicly express their opinions. Jeff Jacoby has more in a wonderful column titled “Shut Up, They Explained.”

-The 2012 Federal Register is already up to 4,456 pages. It’s still January.

-The most bizarre regulation of the year could well be this Alabama bill “prohibiting the sale or manufacture of food or products which contain aborted human fetuses.” SB 1418 would ostensibly ban embryonic stem-cell research in the state.

-A local ordinance in Suffolk, Virginia prohibits driving motorized vehicles under their own power within city limits.

-The IRS is once again making noises about wanting to do your taxes for you. I’ve written before on why this is a bad idea, but it looks like I may have to explain myself a little more clearly.

Is Bush or Obama the Bigger Regulator?

President Obama correctly pointed out in his State of the Union speech that he passed fewer regulations in his first three years than President Bush. Over at the Daily Caller, Wayne Crews crunched the numbers and found that Bush passed 12,588 regulations to Obama’s 10,810.

That’s an average of 4,196 rules per year for Bush, and 3,603 for Obama — nearly two fewer rules per day. For those who believe that Bush was a free-marketeer, Obama has given us another nail for that myth’s well-sealed coffin.

But that doesn’t mean President Obama is less of a regulator than his predecessor. He has passed fewer rules, but they tend to cost more. Regulations are classified as “significant” if they cost over $100 million per year. There are different technical definitions for “significant,” “economically significant,” and “major.” And the Federal Register gives different counts than NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration.

With those caveats in mind, the Federal Register data have President Bush passing 30 economically significant regulations in his first three years. Obama passed 953.

The difference is more than a factor of 30. Roughly one quarter of one percent of Bush’s rules were economically significant.  Almost 9 percent of Obama’s are.

What the President said on Tuesday is technically correct. But, as with almost all political statements, there is more to the story.

Why? Just Because.

This picture is not a joke. The regulation is genuine. But it isn’t unique; I once wrote a Regulation of the Day about a similar federal rule.

(via Radley Balko and John Stossel)

Regulation Roundup

The latest goings-on in the world of regulation:

  • The 2012 Federal Register is already over 1,000 pages long. After four working days, it’s already up to 1,007 pages.
  • The 2011 Federal Register weighs in at 82,419 pages. That’s 328 pages per work day. Adjusting the count for skips, jumps, and blank pages would probably yield around 81,000 pages. That adjusted count should come out soon. The all-time record adjusted page count is 81,405 pages, set in 2010.
  • My colleague Wayne Crews has set up TenThousandCommandments.com, which has daily Federal Register updates and other nifty features. Wayne talked to me about the site in this podcast; there is also a 10KC Facebook page and a Twitter feed. The goal is to make it as easy as possible for the public to keep an eye on the regulatory state. Of course, agencies and OMB should already be doing this already. Since they aren’t, CEI is doing it for them.
  • Sam Patterson compares the size of the 2011 Federal Register to a lengthy reading list of classic books totaling about 7.3 million words. How do they compare? “[Y}ou’d have to read every single one of these books ten times over to achieve the same word count that was added to the Federal Register in a single year.”
    Also worth noting: in the publishing industry, a manuscript page has 250 words. Or at least it’s counted that way; every page is different. So a 200-page manuscript is considered a 50,000-word book. The average Federal Register page has about 1,000 words. Patterson used 900 words per page to err on the side of caution. Using his numbers, a paperback edition of the Federal Register would be about 292,000 pages instead of 81,000.
  • It’s not pornography, it’s the TSA: “’When Bruch reached into Russell’s groin area he ‘lifted up to feel,’ ‘ wrote 9th Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown in the opinion.”
  • Having solved all of Indiana’s other problems, state Rep. Randy Frye wants to criminalize novelty lighters.
  • Jim Gattuso and Diane Katz list the ten worst federal rules of 2011. There are some doozies.

Regulatory Capture

Businesses, especially larger ones, aren’t afraid of regulation. They often welcome it. They can use rules to stifle competitors, or can pad their profits by forcing consumers to pay higher prices. There’s a reason so many businesses have a Washington office. They’re trying to influence regulations and regulators alike.

This is called regulatory capture, and George Washington University’s Susan Dudley gives some examples in the video below. Click here if the embedded video below doesn’t work.

Happy New Year

According to MSNBC, 40,000 new laws come into effect today.