Category Archives: Regulation of the Day

Regulation of the Day 95: Buying Wine in Ohio

It is illegal to buy more than 288 bottles of wine per year in Ohio.

If you drink that much wine by yourself, then you have more important problems to worry about than regulatory compliance. But if you host of lot of parties or are building up a wine collection, you run a real risk of hitting the limit.

“The level was set to establish what would seem to be a reasonable amount for personal use,” according to the Ohio Wine Producers Association’s executive director, Donniella Winchell.

Since the law is somewhat difficult to enforce, no violators have yet been found. But when there are, the Ohio Department of Public Safety Investigative Unit will come knocking. Because while buying 288 bottles of wine is perfectly fine, buying 289 poses a threat to public safety.

(Hat tip to CEI colleague Megan McLaughlin)

Regulation of the Day 94: Plastic Shopping Bags

Retailers have traditionally provided free shopping bags to their customers as a courtesy. Washington, DC’s city government – known for being less than courteous – is now requiring stores to charge customers five cents for each plastic bag they use at checkout.

The tax is environmentally motivated. Since the city is acting so urgently on shopping bags, that implies that they must be the most urgent environmental threat facing DC. If that’s the case, then DC must be a veritable ecological paradise, or else its priorities are misplaced. One or the other must be true.

There were 84 unsolved murders in DC in 2009, by the way.

In lieu of plastic bags, the city is urging people to buy reusable cloth bags. But those have an environmental footprint nearly 100 times larger than a plastic bag, according to Sierra Club data. They have to be used many, many times before they cause any savings. They are also a haven for bacteria if not regularly washed. And washing them adds to their footprint.

Washington, DC has a lot of problems. Expensive but inferior schools, crime, violence, high taxes and spending – the list is long. The epidemic of plastic bags littering the streets is right at the bottom of that list. It should be prioritized accordingly. The regressive plastic bag tax should be repealed.

Regulation of the Day 93: Predatory Lending

Congress has used the financial crisis as an excuse to regulate what it calls “predatory lending.” As so often happens, its new regulations have had unintended consequences.

A bank in South Dakota, in order to comply with the new rules, is charging 79.9 percent interest for one of its low-limit credit cards. The pre-regulation rate was 9.9 percent.

The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 makes it illegal to charge annual fees greater than a quarter of a card’s limit. For small-balance cards, the allowable fees are tiny now. That leaves banks with three options:

-1. Lose money. The Wall Street Journal correctly notes that “Banks can’t be expected to give money away, even if Congress is in the habit of doing just that.” So this option is unlikely.

-2. Stop offering low-limit cards. This will hurt people who need them, such as people with low incomes, people with bad credit records, and young people who are trying to establish a credit record.

-3. Charge higher interest rates to make up for the money lost in fees. This is exactly what is happening here with the 79.9 percent rate for a $250-limit card.

If the bank calculated correctly, the 79.9 percent rate will be roughly a wash compared to the earlier high-fee, low-rate policy. But different customers will be paying. The people who incur a lot of  interest-rate charges are usually the people who can’t afford them. And they’ll be paying a lot more than they were before the CCARD Act.

People who can afford to pay their balances on time often don’t pay little or no interest interest anyway. The 79.9 percent rate doesn’t really affect them. And now their annual fees have gone way down. The CCARD Act is, completely unintentionally,  a wealth transfer from poor people to richer people. Congress is actively hurting the very people it intended to help.

Regulation of the Day 92: Camping at the Beach

In Oregon, it is illegal to set up a tent at most beaches.

A beach would not be my first choice for a place to spend the night. It would be cold and wet, especially in Oregon. Sand would get into all kinds of places I’d rather it wouldn’t.

But is a law necessary? Before the tent ban, was there an epidemic of cold, wet, and sandy people on Oregon’s beaches, who would gladly turn to safer, more comfortable accommodations if only a law would nudge them in that direction?

Or should the Solons of Oregon turn their attention to more important matters?

Regulation of the Day 91: Horse Floaters

As horses age, their teeth often wear down into points. This can cause the animals great pain if they bite into their tongue or cheeks. Chewing can also become problematic. A horse floater’s job is to keep that from happening. They are a kind of equine dental specialist. Floaters anesthetize the animal then grind its teeth into smoother shapes.

But regulators are clamping down on horse floaters. Many states want to require them to be licensed veterinarians. This would throw a lot of floaters out of business. Most of them specialize in horse teeth and have no need for full veterinary training. That’s why few have bothered to get it, since it takes years of school and thousands of dollars.

Horse floater Carl Mitz told a reporter, ‘Saying only veterinarians can do this profession … if they’re successful, it eliminates me. After 25 years, I’ll no longer have a job.’

Mr. Mitz is fighting back in court. But he shouldn’t have to. He has a right to make an honest living. And he has been for at least 25 years. Regulators should respect that right.

Regulation of the Day 90: The National Poultry Improvement Plan

Having solved all the nation’s other problems, the federal government has a National Poultry Improvement Plan. Run in conjunction with state governments, “The main objective of this program is to use new diagnostic technology to effectively improve poultry and poultry products throughout the United States.”

Because the government puts so much time and attention into issues like chicken health, it is neglecting its core duty: protecting citizens from attack. Last week’s terrorist attack should be a wake-up call for the government to drop non-essential tasks and concentrate on what it should be doing.

Regulation of the Day 89: Purple Dye

Ancient Roman consuls – equivalent to our presidents – wore togas edged in purple to mark their high status. As Republic became Empire, new emperors were said to “ascend to the purple.”

Purple clothing was a status symbol for most of human history. It was the ancient equivalent of the Mercedes-Benz. Originally discovered in the glands of shellfish (reputedly by Heracles’s dog!), it took 12,000 of the creatures to get just 1.5 grams of dye. Purple garments could be as rare and costly as gold in some places.

Modern innovations such as inexpensive synthetic dyes, the Minnesota Vikings, and purple M&Ms have taken away the color’s exotic reputation. But no worry. Federal regulators are doing what they can to bring it back.

Alpinil Industries, a dye manufacturer in India, sells its carbazole violet pigment 23 cheaply. Too cheaply, it seems. Even commoners can afford to buy products colored with their purple hues!

Irate American competitors convinced the government in 2004 to put an anti-dumping duty on Alpinil’s purple dye. That raised the price to match pricey American-made dyes. Purple would once again be reserved for the rich.

Now that the tax has been in place for five years, the Department of Commerce is wrapping up an investigation to see if it has been working as intended. A repeal would be best for consumers. Don’t expect to see it happen, though.

The benefits are concentrated to a few dye manufacturers, who have a strong incentive to lobby to keep the status quo. Meanwhile, the costs are diffused onto millions of consumers, none of whom have much incentive to spend thousands of dollars in an effort to save themselves a few pennies.

Regulation of the Day 88: College Football’s Playoff System

College football is bringing big bucks to K Street as lawmakers take aim at dismantling the Bowl Championship Series,” says a recent story in Politico.

A six-figure sum is being spent lobbying what really shouldn’t be a government issue. Millions more are being spent on other issues affecting college sports.

There’s even a PlayOff PAC that gives money to politicians who take an active stance on college football playoff reform.

True, the BCS playoff system could definitely use an overhaul. But that’s a job for the NCAA. Not Congress.

On the other hand, legislators do considerably less harm when they spend their time on college football instead of, say, health care or fiscal stimulus.

Regulation of the Day 87: The Volume of TV Commercials

The House passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act on Wednesday. If it becomes law, the FCC would control the volume level of television commercials. Some of them are noticeably louder than regular programming. This is, to put it tactfully, irritating.

Rep. Rick Boucher told the Associated Press that “It’s an annoying experience, and something really should be done about it.”

He was talking about the commercials, though his remarks better fit the regulations he voted for.

Still, he’s right that something needs to be done. Loud commercials are a nuisance. They are also avoidable. For example, I avoid them by watching as little television as possible. Maybe read a book or spend time with loved ones instead. There are other ways, too. Here are a few:

-Use the mute button on your remote.

-If you have DVR and you’re watching a show you recorded, you can fast forward through the commercials.

-Change the channel.

-Let broadcasters know how you feel. Tell them not to run loud commercials. You can contact ABC here; CBS here; Fox here; and NBC here. They’d rather you watch their channel than not, after all. And the best way to prevent a viewer exodus is not alienating them.

Besides, they’d probably rather hear from you than the FCC.

(Hat tip to Fred Smith)

Regulation of the Day 86: Cockfighting Advertisements

If you’re thinking of sending out advertisements for a cockfight through the mail, you should be aware that a new regulation allows the postal service to refuse to deliver it.

The same rules also covers advertisements for a “knife, a gaff, or any other sharp instrument attached, or designed or intended to be attached, to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.”

Animal fighting is barbaric. And it is illegal in most places. The underground nature of animal fighting makes one wonder how many cockfight promoters actually advertise their events by putting fliers in the mail. Wouldn’t that just make it easier to get arrested?

If so, the USPS should be encouraging such advertising, not banning it. Driving animal fights further underground only makes them harder to eradicate.