Are Government Regulations Out of Control?
Every day we see a new story about how the government is "intruding into our private lives." This so-called "nanny state" that libertarians detest so much has our leaders telling us what we can and cannot eat (trans fat, soda tax), where we can smoke (no public buildings) and what we can't do in our car (texting).
Is this the beginning of George Orwell's 1984 and "Big Brother," as The Rutherford Institute writes on OpposingViews.com, or is it one big overreaction? Is government simply looking out for our best interests?
Not to get all John Stossel on you, but here are a few recent cases where you could argue government regulations have run amok:
-- In Michigan, a woman is being threatened with a fine or even prison time for allegedly running an illegal day care center. What exactly is she doing? Watching her friends' children.
-- An Indiana grandmother was arrested for buying too much cold medicine. It seems you're not allowed to buy more than 3 ounces of anything containing pseudophedrine within a seven day period. Pseudophedrine is a key ingredient in making meth. There's no exception for buying medicine for sick grandkids.
-- New York City, where trans-fats are banned and they're threatening a soda tax, now wants to ban smoking in city parks and beaches. Research is sketchy on whether outdoor secondhand smoke causes harm.
-- President Barack Obama and Congress are considering a mandate on health insurance, meaning people would be forced to buy coverage, whether they want it or not, whether they can afford it or not.
The battle between government intervention in the lives of Americans has long been drawn along political lines. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson dreamed of a "Great Society" where the federal government was in nearly every aspect of life. Republican President Ronald Reagan echewed big government, famously saying at his 1981 inauguration, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem:"
But lately those lines have blurred. A study by the Brookings Institute of the Clinton years found the Democratic administration left behind a smaller government, cutting some 700,000 federal jobs. Conversely, the George W. Bush Republican administration greatly expanded government, adding more than a million federal employees. That study, also by the Brookings Institute, found while much of the increase was in Homeland Security following 9/11, there was also growth in such areas as Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration.
But what some call the government's intrusion, others call the true work of the government: Make our country better and keep us safe. Here are a few examples of regulations that have bettered society:
-- Laws that forced people to wear seat belts were resisted at first, but they have saved countless lives.
-- Smoking bans, while unpopular with smokers and many business owners, have absolutely saved lives, according to multiple studies.
-- The trans-fat bans that are sweeping the country are making foods safer, and are saving people from eating something harmful they probably didn't even know they were eating.
-- President Obama promises that a mandate on health insurance would actually lower health costs for everyone, since the rest of the country wouldn't have to carry the burden of paying for health care for the uninsured.
So what do you think? Is government getting in the way of us living our lives, or is it making it possible for us to live better lives?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Did you guys forget that the deregulation policy of the Republican party put us into a recession ?
If left unchecked these companies will continue to kill off the middle class until we are put back into the days of Kings and cronies vs Surfs(we are very close now) I agree that there are very bad laws out there now.
Obama has talked about allowing interstate insurance. That wouldn't lower the prices or give as much to the people as the Public Option will.
Let us not forget that the Bush administration raised concerns about the size of Freddie and Fannie in April 2001, stating that their size posed "potential problems." The Democrats ignored it.
In 2003, they said it was a system risk that could spread beyond the housing sector. Barney Frank said, no Freddie and Fannie are fine.
In 2004 Bush urged congress to regulate Fannie and Freddie. Still no problems, according to the Democrats. Barney Frank said, "Fannie May and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis."
In 2005 Alan Greenspan said, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financila system of the future at a substantial risk."
So how exactly did the Republicans' fault again?
You make a good point that more than one member of congress is a moron. Still that was in 2001-2003 right? So what was going on when Bush got into office with all of his cronies? Why couldn't he step in and "fix" the Freddie and Fannie problem? The answer is because he wanted the problem to be passed down to the next generation.
Deregulation is a moronic idea. It's well known that it is a part of human nature to be greedy. To leave people with power unchecked can and will continue to dismantle the middle class.
"Still that was in 2001-2003 right? So what was going on when Bush got into office with all of his cronies? Why couldn't he step in and "fix" the Freddie and Fannie problem?"
Wasn't Bush President from 2000 - 2008? He tried several times to fix it, as pointed out above, but was shot down. As late as 2008 Barney Frank refused to admit that anything was wrong with Freddie and Fannie. On July 14, 2008 he said, "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."
Remember that part of that time was a Republican controlled Congress and the latter half, during which Frank's last comment was made, it was Democrat controlled. Besides, this whole mess started during the Clinton administration. So it appears, to me at least, that there's plenty of blame to go around. Except to Bush, who tried more than once to stop it.
Lol.
No, we never believed that rhetoric because it was bullsh1t the day it was uttered. We know that the recession was caused by consumer indebtedness exacerbated by the housing bubble bursting. Republicans warned about this years ago, but their hands were tied. Much like Obama's hands are tied with healthcare insurance today.
"For more than two decades we had consumer-led growth, which actually mitigated the recessions of the early 1990s and 2001," Fazzari says. "Part of the reason we had mild recessions was due to consumer strength. But we kept building up debt. It was also a period of falling nominal interest rates. This meant that every cycle of low interest rates was another opportunity for people to refinance on better terms and extend their spending further."
http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/11430.html
Giving away expensive medical insurance is cheaper to the buyer than interstate commerce being allowed for medical insurance.
However, it will cost more in the long run because the government can and will raise taxes to pay for it and it will get costlier and costlier as time goes on, just like every other government program has.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
The housing crisis was NOT caused by "the people" buying homes. And, wow, your notion that the republicans "warned us about this years ago, but their hands were tied" is just plain blind of you.
The meltdown of our economy was caused by the "wizard" bankers of wall street with their magical high risk tranches, collateralized mortgage obligations, and derivative swaps. It was caused by huge banks adopting policies of extending loans to those who couldn't really afford it, just to build up their portfolios in the area of high risk loans, which, of course, led to a false valuation in the housing market. Sure prices in the housing market have always risen from year to year, but it was these greed driven, and, yes, sometimes illegal banking activities that caused the enormous bubble that recently popped in the faces of the poor and middle class while the banks were bailed out and the rich walked away relatively unscathed having hedged their bets or hidden their assets from harm.
Fanny and Freddy did not cause the bubble and did not turn our financial institutions into gambling casinos that play with middle class people's money, they were however swept up in it, and they are responsible for many irresponsible policies along the way, but you're looking in the wrong place if you want to catch the king pin and not one of his relatively pathetic minions. Fanny and Freddy are more than a patsy, but less then a power player.
I hold the Democrats just as much to blame for turning their heads away from all this, not only for not making sure that regulations were enforced, and that appropriate regulations were enacted and that the SEC was doing its job , but also for not prosecuting or sincerely pursuing comprehensive investigations into all of the above.
If I may add , just a little pet peeve of mine. A regulation is a law , nothing more. Saying we don't need regulations isn't LIKE saying we don't need laws . It IS saying we don't need laws. Well, if we don't need laws then why do we have a country and/or government to begin with? Have you taken a look at China lately. No not their size and "sudden" rise , but their Pollution, Corruption, Environmental devastation (something like a fourth of that huge nation has become desert), Poverty, and incompetent infrastructure. There's your model for "no regulation" on big business. The Wild Wild East. Vast economic growth woo hoo! Just don't drink the Chinese water .
People bought outside of their means. The damn banks did not FORCE people to buy outside of their means...But you're right: They let people do it. The fact remains that irresponsible people did it.
The banks allowed this (against the capitalistic norm of minimizing risk) because fnme and fdmc would pick up such risky loans. Republicans blew the whistle. Watch for yourself, you ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Laws.
Of course a regulation is a law , but this does not mean that all laws are good. Saying that certain regulations hamper business and thus cause a little damage to the economy and/or the job market is NOT the same as saying "We don't want any laws!" To argue thus is pedantic. Just like some laws (Ex. marijuana prohibition ) are stupid and in need of repeal , so too are some regulations. Notice I did not say ALL laws. Nobody is asking for all laws (or all regulations) to be rescinded. Least of all me.
Now about China.
I don't know which backwards school you went to, but PRC's economic system is State Directed Capitalism. WTF are you talking about "no regulations"?! China's business regulations are authoritative and vast in number. The government has complete control over the 'private sector'. This includes production, exportation, and labor . You make it sound like China has some type of laissez faire capitalism when nothing can be further from the truth. You could not be less correct.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
The "government" is operated by the hard work of millions of people following laws and procedures re-written every other year.
In some cases it screws up really badly (private day care centers), in some cases political rhetoric and populism churns out bad law (14 year olds are convicted of more sex crimes now than any other aged person all because of anti-pedophile populist rhetoric) but in some cases it works pretty well (Medicare).
It's not good or bad, we need it to do things and those things are all done by humans so sometimes it screws up and sometimes it does well.
I don't know what would make you think Medicare works pretty well, however.
Maybe you like the concept so much that you turn a blind eye to the actual practice. Medicare is a cesspool of corruption, painted a pretty color.
I agree with you about the gross over-reaction that are a lot of the pedophile laws. Sadly, any attempt to correct these laws will be attacked as "being kind to pedophiles". This adds to your correct assessment of the populist rhetoric.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Medicare has corruption from without, hard to manage, but not really a strike against it. Like food stamps or welfare, you can't kill fraud... You remind people it illegal and atleast try.
Private insurance is corrupt from within, impossible to manage, and definitely a strike against it. Private insurance is more efficient at making money and making people rich.
I'd rather a few folks illegaly pilfer a few cents off the top while the rest of the program helps people, than have a few folks take massive lobs off the top legally while the rest of the program works to help as few people as possible for as little as possible.
There are better examples of good government programs that work well, but Medicare is an example of how the government can do things right by the people it serves.