Make an industry pay for their regulation.
This is as asinine concept as I can think of.
I think this will go down as the Executive Branch pushing the envelope too far.
1 Like
Most already do. That’s why it’s such a barrier to entry for many fields.
Just another example as to why gov is the largest contributor to inflation.
The end-use always pays… yet some continue to vote for big gov.
1 Like
I worked for a financial firm for awhile. I would say 1/2 the employees were tied to regulations. As such the company was paying for the regulations.
Not sure the regulations really did much but created jobs. It also prevented a person for getting involved since you would need millions just to hire people for the regulations.
It is a double edged sword. LIberals love to complain about Elon but you needed someone with money like Elon to create electric cars.
My friend was designing electric cars as a hobby. He is a EE and he was something fun he did on the side. He said to being it to market, he would need billions of dollars which is crazy.
The company’s customer was paying for the regulations.
The end user always pays.
My sister and brother-in-law own a couple companies and they have to report to 23 government agencies including the IRS, OSHA, state regulators, labor department and many more.
I think like most people, I am ok with reasonable barriers to entry. Barriers can help ensure someone is serious enough and smart enough to run a business meticulously.
But too often these barriers end up as arbitrary and excessive, and these qualities tend to develop over time, with government officials asleep at the wheel, performing seemingly no due diligence to make sure things are still reasonable.
Usually it is the incumbent big businesses behind this perverse move, because it reduces or eliminates their competition.
That makes us a functional plutocracy, rather than a semi-democratic republic.
And probably the end of the Chevron Doctrine.
we can hope.
I was wondering your opinion on this.
Right now, the regulatory agencies write and implement rules and regulations. Proposed rules are published in the Federal Register and open to public comment for a period. I’ve been away of that review process for awhile now, but there was no requirement that the agency respond to, or even consider, the public comments. Some agencies, like EPA, used to keep the studies they used to set the rules confidential. There was some discussion when Trump was Prez to open that process, but I don’t know if they did. The Federal Register is hundreds of pages, every day the feds works.
Congress abdicated their role in law making and gave the agencies alone the power to do all of this. After all, a rule is law. If Congress doesn’t like a rule, they now have to pass a resolution cancelling it. Those are rare because Congress doesn’t like and overpoliticizes that process. I think the final rules should be submitted to Congress for review and approval before they become law. Stupid rules, like the highway sign message posted earlier, would likely not survive that review. If it takes a lot of Congress’ time, too bad. Maybe that will discourage overreaching regulation and clearer law writing.
I don’t particularly like the idea of having to use the courts to overturn rules, because standing is always an issue and such litigation is painfully expensive. That limits who can actually contest a rule. But, courts exist to do just that.
I always like the example of tea regulation. Congress established a Federal Tea Commission in the 1890s to govern the quality of tea sold in the US by having federal tea tasters. After years, if not decades, about the need for that, Congress eliminated the tea tasters in 1996. It took another 25 years to eliminate the Commission, although their sole responsibility had been to supervise the tasters.
1 Like
Not going to copy your entire comment.
I have slightly different reasons for thinking Chevron is stupid.
But there is no way I can phrase it as eloquently as you just did.
No one has come up with any reasonable alternative to Chevron (which was unanimous). The expectation that Congress will deliberate on each and every regulation is more ridiculous than the existing excessive regulations. Grinding things to a halt is worse.
Make Congress do their fucking job!!
Did you read Jim’s post?
Submit rules to Congress for approval. They don’t have to put the minutia in a bill, but when a rule change is proposed, it should not be universally accepted as gospel
Better than an overzealous Federal agency.
1 Like
What is your opinion on the issue which led to this case as discussed in the article Parrot cited?
I note MCarley did not respond to my question about what his opinion is on the subject case, where the relevant federal agency has decreed that fisherman must pay the salaries for the monitors that are required to be on the boats.
Thinking about this more, using this precedent, what would stop the IRS from decreeing that anybody who is audited is responsible for paying for the auditor’s salary?
Like I said earlier, I think this will be the case where the government pushed the envelope too far when it should have left well-enough alone.
1 Like
Yep, for decades the Feds got away with “because we are experts “ as the only justification for any major change in policy.
Then they took to big a bit of the apple
Looks like I got busy and missed something. Should I scroll back t the top of the thread or has the moment passed. 