There are tens of thousands of pages of federal laws and
regulations, so many that every living person has broken at least one. And our
devoted regulators and legislators annually churn out roughly 80,000 pages of
new and proposed regulations to justify their jobs, producing a stack 23 feet
high if you piled those pages on top of each other.
These edicts range from how much water your toilet uses, to replacing
incandescent bulbs with “newer, better,” costlier ones containing toxic
mercury, to regulating dust on farms, to the EPA water quality standards allowing
so little conductivity that they make apple juice, Gatorade and Evian and Perrier
bottled water harmful, as well as a long list of crimes, both serious and
trivial.
This hyper-activity punishes and imposes enormous costs on individuals,
businesses and state and local governments, costs that are ultimately borne by consumers
and taxpayers.
One example of how regulations can negatively affect a
business is the case of the Royal Palms Resort and Spa in Phoenix, Arizona. As
detailed by Fox Business Network host John Stossel, “One rule that just went into
effect, which you can find by flipping to page 56,236 of the 2010 regulations,
will require all hotels with a pool -- or a hot tub -- to install wheelchair
accessible ramps or lifts into the water.”
Due to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the hotel already
had portable ramps that can assist handicapped people. But resort manager Greg
Miller said the ramps have not been used in 15 years. Now, the Department of
Justice has decided that the portable ramps are not adequate, and has mandated
that permanent ramps be installed, which Mr. Miller said will cost about
$40,000 for every pool and hot tub on the premises. But there is an
alternative: pay a $55,000 fine for each pool and hot tub.
Mr. Stossel’s report continues: “Regulators admit that it's
likely that fewer people will use pools with ramps in them ‘because the new
requirements for a sloped entry might make the pool too shallow.’"
A lot of folks regard this as somewhat academic because they
aren’t directly affected, and to really bring home how out of control our once
limited federal government has grown, you have to actually feel the pain. And
while low-flow toilets and expensive CFL light bulbs help understanding this in
some small way, they fail to fully illustrate the pain of unfunded federal
mandates.
For a starker dose of reality, consider the plight of the City
of Bluefield, West Virginia, where the royal pains of too much government are
being felt.
The City is the proud owner of Mitchell Stadium, a 10,000
seat football venue that has been around since 1935. It is the site of football
games for local middle school and high school teams, and for other events like
open air concerts, fund raising walks and other outdoor activities. It will be
the home field for Bluefield College when its re-established football team
begins playing regular season games this fall.
The City receives income from the two county school systems
whose teams use the stadium, which helps defray expenses, and over the years
expensive improvements and upgrades to the facility, like the new playing
surface a few years back, often have been funded with private money.
But now the City must make upgrades to the stadium to meet
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at a cost somewhere
in the neighborhood of a half-million dollars. This new mandate came along when
someone filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, which apparently
hasn’t enough really important things to do, or has so many people working
there that they could send someone right out and investigate the complaint, then
issue orders to the City to either make the necessary modifications ASAP, or
the DOJ will padlock Mitchell Stadium.
During the vast majority of events the stadium is far from
full, and in fact, standing-room-only is a rare thing. So, it’s a fair question
just how many people will really benefit from a half-million bucks of improved access
for disabled visitors. The ADA called for modifying the entrance ramps from the
parking lot up to the gates, and accommodating 67 wheel chairs inside the
stadium. Apparently, even though there have likely never been 67
wheelchair-bound people attending an event at the same time, or even close to
that number, the facility must be ready to accommodate them, just in case.
Owning and operating a football stadium is not normal for a
city like Bluefield, and the City would rather not be in that business. But
there are no options for transferring ownership to someone else, and the City understands
that allowing the federal government to shut down Mitchell Stadium is not
acceptable, so somehow it will have to come up with $500,000 this summer to
keep the facility open.
This is what happens when there’s too much government. Be
thankful we don’t get all that we pay for.
The good people of Bluefield and the surrounding area should
keep this foolishness in mind when they go to the polls in November.
19 comments:
Damn those cripples for wanting access and accommodations at Mitchell Stadium...
I blame Obama and Lebron ...
GOP 2012!
No legitimate disagreement, I see.
I will say the shower-less locker rooms and sub-par restrooms at our great stadium are well overdue for an upgrade...I know the ones by the concessions are more modern but I feel you would have to agree an upgrade is needed for the antiquated field houses by the bleachers... especially if they are going to continue to host concerts and pursue SuperSix coming to town...
and for every one of those bogus regulations, and I side with you on many of those you listed, there a numerous others in place to ensure the health and safety of the public...things like fire exits and electrical standards are necessary and those are just two basic examples...but yes, some things have gotten out of control... but I would also think many of those regulations would have required some bipartisan support to pass...
The main problem with this is that the federal government believes it can tell individuals, businesses and local and state governments what to do and not do in a myriad of areas of day-to-day life. To a shocking degree, this occurs in areas outside its Constitutional limits.
That has to be brought under control. Soon.
As far as sub-par facilities are concerned, the determination that something is “sub-par” is somewhat subjective, and is its condition is under the control of the owner. Anyone who feels Mitchell Stadium is too bad to use for an event or to attend has the option not to use it or go there. When people stop using it, or complain to the owner in sufficient numbers, the owner will either close it or upgrade it, and will do so to the extent the owner believes is adequate, or as much as resources allow, and people can decide whether the changes are adequate for their use or not.
Does that mean that government has nothing to say about any of this? No, but government at all levels should have limited control, and the degree of that control should diminish with the distance of the governmental body from the facility: the municipal government the highest degree, then the county, then the state, and almost none the federal.
The more local the governmental body, the greater the ability of individuals to influence how it behaves, and generally local governments are more responsive to the needs and desires of their citizens.
Mitchell Stadium is somewhat unique, since it is a government-owned facility, but even so, the federal government should have nothing to say about it.
In short, there are other mechanisms than government – especially the federal government – to affect how things operate; we have to learn not to depend upon government to solve all of our problems, both real and perceived.
A responsible owner will operate a facility that is safe and meets the needs of customers, and if the owner does not meet the standards demanded by the customers, they will not use that facility and find or create better venues.
When government is too involved in the day-to-day, we replace the judgment of free individuals with the judgment of politicians (with all that implies) and unelected bureaucrats. That is the state of the United States today, and we are moving farther in that direction by the day.
so you for a more Laissez Faire style of capitalism... or do you see some form of oversight and regulation is needed within some areas at the Federal Level or should they be more state and local directives?
I think the federal government’s role is very limited and is primarily to sustain the values set forth in the Declaration of Independence, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
I think some degree of oversight and regulation at the federal level is okay, and perhaps even necessary, but it has to be limited – better too little than too much.
The states are where the bulk of regulation should reside, but there, too, it must be limited to the point where it helps, and does not impede, people acting in their own best interests, and pursuing happiness. Again, better too little than too much.
The problem with all of this is that once begun, regulation grows like an aggressive cancer and ultimately paralyzes society. We see that to a substantial degree today.
On the macro scale people are generally quite capable of knowing what is good and what isn’t, but government nearly always adopts the position that it knows best, and attempts to tell people what is best for them. That is wrong.
seems like we have systems already in place where elected representatives must approve/support such regulations...
not sure you who think should be the "decider" on this, but doesnt it fall back to our elected reps?
like many things,i think it depends on the circumstances for each regulation... its hard to draw a universal clear cut line in the sand to say anything above/below this line is too much/too little by the Fed/State/Local govt...such "all or none" positions can be very limiting
seems many of the regulations are designed, at least in "spirit", to promote Life, Liberty and Happiness of all citizens and wouldnt have been approved unless their case was made to our officials, who should be voting on behalf of the folks in their district...
and I doubt the crop of GOP candidates would really do much to reduce many of the regulations already in place... I think its all just talking points and stump speeches...
seems like we have systems already in place where elected representatives must approve/support such regulations...
Or, understand that they are unconstitutional, or unwise.
not sure you who think should be the "decider" on this, but doesnt it fall back to our elected reps?
It is controlled by the Constitution.
like many things,i think it depends on the circumstances for each regulation... its hard to draw a universal clear cut line in the sand to say anything above/below this line is too much/too little by the Fed/State/Local govt...such "all or none" positions can be very limiting
Limited: That’s the idea.
seems many of the regulations are designed, at least in "spirit", to promote Life, Liberty and Happiness of all citizens and wouldnt have been approved unless their case was made to our officials, who should be voting on behalf of the folks in their district...
Should be. It’s all about power and being able to control what people do.
and I doubt the crop of GOP candidates would really do much to reduce many of the regulations already in place... I think its all just talking points and stump speeches...
Which is why we have to have the discipline to stick with the plan created and approved in 1787.
1787? Really...
I dont even want to go back to 1987...
Who said anything about "going back" to 1787?
That's when the most imaginative plan for a system of government that allowed the highest degree of personal liberty was written and approved.
It did it's job exceptionally well, until about 100 years ago, at which point arrogant Americans thought they knew better, tried to improve it, and failed miserably. The most significant and most harmful failures occurred mostly within my lifetime.
Now look at the humongous mess we have to endure.
i know... when life was so much simpler...
90% worked in the Farm Industry, half the population was under 16yrs old, our largest city had just 35,000 people, slaves only counted as 2/3 a person on the Census, we had to worry about quartering soldiers in our home, and women werent viewed as intelligent or stable enough to vote...
Exceptionally well written and very relevant today on all accounts...
and the failures in your lifetime, which I assume you hate and despise include The New Deal, Social Security, the Civil Rights Movement, Womens Movement, Sexual Revolution, etc...
anything I miss?
None of the societal characteristics you noted has anything at all to do with the quality of the plan that was developed in the 18th century. As I mentioned, it worked well for more than 100 years.
Be careful about making assumptions. It’s a pothole-filled course, and you just stepped into a few of them. And, just so you know, I was not alive during the New Deal or the passage of Social Security. Or the ratification of the Constitution.
I was, however, around for the civil rights movement, the women’s movement and the sexual revolution, all three of which are in a completely different category than the New Deal and Social Security. The latter two were actions by government that are outside the boundaries of the Constitution, and the New Deal was a dramatic failure that is now at the root of many of our current problems.
However, just because Social Security is unconstitutional doesn’t mean it could or should be ended, at least not in one fell swoop. The government should not be involved in funding people’s retirement, and it is a tribute to how bad an idea it was that it is now bankrupt. A gradual transition to a constitutional system would not be painful, and would free the government of a huge, unsustainable expense, and erase a foolish breach of constitutionality.
The others were “grass roots” efforts to right perceived wrongs, and were to one degree or another justified by conditions in society, and having lived through them, I have a perspective and a basis from which to comment on them that you do not.
Some legislation resulted from those movements in the effort to legislate fairness, which is somewhat like trying to legislate good weather. There will always be some racists, bigots, sexists, etc., no matter how many laws are passed, and sometimes trying to outlaw something like bias only makes matters worse. The best that can be said of those movements is that they did raise awareness, but the awareness would have been raised without passing laws.
Did you miss anything? Lord, yes. Boatloads.
i guess its our differences in age and in social class.. you see it as attempting to legislate fairness and I see it as trying to deter discrimination through legislation...
if we had it your way, then all of our grandma's would be starving to death and dying at a much younger age... like they did leading up to and during the great depression...
i cant wait to see what fun your tuesday article brings...
As I said, discrimination exists with or without legislation outlawing it. Look around. It’s human nature. It ain’t pretty, and it ain’t right, but there’s more discrimination than you think, and all those laws haven’t mattered at all.
"if we had it your way, then all of our grandma's would be starving to death and dying at a much younger age... like they did leading up to and during the great depression..."
Do you have even a suspicion of how stupid that comment is?
No, of course not. That’s a typical liberal ploy. Take something and set it up as the position of your opponent, with absolutely no evidence to support it. Ever heard of a straw man? It’s frequently a sign of desperation and giving up on the debate.
C’mon, CK, you’re smarter than that.
the way i understand Social Security and Medicare is that it came in response to the lack of funds to support an aging population who could no longer work and had lived paycheck to paycheck, at best, for most of their lives and had no means of saving/planning for their "unproductive" years.
Part of the problem with the logistics of it all is that our elderly population has dramatically grown as a result of better medicine as well as the "safety net" provided by Social Security and Medicare...so much growth, in both population and medical costs (thank you capitalist inflation) that the program is unsustainable ... when it was enacted, there were 18 people working for every person receiving benefits, now the "dependency ratio" is just 4 to 1, and it's estimated to be at 2 to 1 within the next few decades...
and the bubble will burst at some point and then our grandma's will be back to starving and dying at a younger age, unless you are part of the dwindling middle class or happen to come from an upper class family...
maybe we should institute some sort of mandatory death age as to relieve ourselves of all the unproductive retired folks living off handouts...or we can just cut services and let god sort 'em out...
In describing your understanding of Social Security and Medicare you have just made the case for why government should not be involved in the day-to-day lives of its citizens: it is an unwieldy and incompetent tool for such things. And, of course, the better reason is that it is not constitutionally empowered to do so.
In your blind rage against capitalism, you ignore its ability to have created mechanisms to enable people to prepare for their own retirement (which it did, incidentally, despite the government’s intervention, through IRAs, pension plans, etc.), and mechanisms to allow people to provide for their own health care (health insurance, health savings plans, non-profit health facilities that provide free care for the poor). You ignore the fact that so much of the inflation you cite is, yet again, a product government intervention, with laws, rules and regulations which increase the costs of doing business, costs which ultimately get passed on to consumers, or price things out of the market for many people.
And, again, you demonstrate the liberal tendency to take a bad situation that was created by government, and then offer an absurd alternative that no conservative has suggested (but which is the unavoidable ultimate consequence of Obamacare) and insinuate that conservatives would advocate that absurd solution. That’s a cheap shot, and is dishonest, to boot, and serves to distract from the debate, rather than advance it.
what comment was deleted? somebody hating on old CK?
Nothing so sinister.
I had posted my response comment, and noticed a couple of mistakes, so I deleted, corrected, and reposted.
Post a Comment