"Light Bulbs, Regulation and Demonization of the Tea Party"
Sydney M. Williams
According to a piece in Friday’s Investors Business Daily, federal regulation costs Americans $1.8 trillion a year – about 12.5 percent of our GDP. Much of that regulation is undoubtedly necessary, but is it all? Should government be telling us what kind of light bulbs we can buy? Is it helpful to us as a nation to have the NLRB tell Boeing that they cannot build planes in South Carolina? Are consumers of natural gas in the Northeast better served by delaying the construction of a pipeline from Canada? Was the protection of the Spotted Owl worth the costs to consumers of substantially higher lumber prices? The Senate, in tabling the House’s passage of a Continuing Budget Resolution, did so because the House version cut $1.5 billion from Department of Energy loan programs. One billion of those loans have gone to two companies – Tesla Motors and Fisker Automotive – that specialize in super high-end luxury electric cars, which sell for prices ranging north of $95,000. Are those investments designed to help the middle class? Robin Hood might have been morally justified because he robbed the rich and gave to the poor. But, in raising costs to consumers – of products as diverse as energy, food, lumber, cars and light bulbs – is not the state robbing the middle class and giving to favored manufacturers?
The answers to those questions will vary depending upon one’s personal political predilections and, more importantly, on one’s financial well being. I live in an environmentally protected area at the mouth of the Connecticut River, so I support and benefit from conservation efforts, knowing there is a cost. While the initial costs of regulation are borne by business, the consumer ultimately gets stuck with the tab. Spending almost 13 percent of GDP seems a very high cost, especially as we risk a slide into another recession and we have about 20 million unemployed or under employed.
Most people would acknowledge that government’s safety regulations, covering items like seat belts, appliance standards, doubled hull tankers, and most food and drugs, have generally been beneficial. However, it was the concern of a too-intrusive federal government that gave birth to the Tea Party in early 2009. To a large extent, the Tea Party is the extension of a group entitled Empower America, founded in 1993 by Jack Kemp, William Bennett and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Their interests lay in smaller government and empowering the individual. They were pro immigration and were not part of the religious right. As I wrote several weeks ago , both political parties have used the Tea Party for their own purposes. Democrats, fearful of any grassroots movement that does not support their cause, have demonized them. They found willing accomplices in the mainstream press. They have been successful, in the sense that the words “Tea Party” have taken on a pejorative connotation. Republicans, like Michelle Bachman, have high-jacked them for her own purposes, thereby covering them with a coating of the religious right; in the process they have diluted the Tea Party’s fiscally important message.
Four years ago, President George Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The bill required general-purpose light bulbs to be 30% more energy efficient. The standards start with 100 watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40 watt bulbs in 2014. In a statement that defies rationality, proponents of the bill argue that that the law’s requirements will increase competition, arguing, for example, that consumers will continue to be able to buy incandescent bulbs…as long as they meet the requirement of 30% greater efficiency, which, of course, is unlikely. In reality, consumers will be left buying compact fluorescent lights that have been around for decades and carry the risk of mercury, and halogen and LEDs that may have longer lives, but are far more expensive. According to my local hardware store, fluorescent bulbs aren’t selling well because of the mercury risk, but also because they don’t last as long as advertised and, in his experience, because the plastic around the light has a tendency to melt. Free markets embrace competition. Innovation is a derivative of competition. Government does set standards, but then it should let markets compete.
Unfortunately, excess government regulation tends to increase costs, limiting competition, and risking crony capitalism, as can be seen in companies as diverse as GE, Solyndra and LightSquared – a condition President Eisenhower warned of in his January 1960 farewell speech. The speech was famous for its alerting his listeners to the risks of the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.” But, a few paragraphs later he also stated: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations and the power of money is ever present…and is gravely to be regarded.”
Not surprisingly and demonstrating my thesis that liberals tend not to be liberal, mainstream media supports government intervention into what light bulbs consumers are permitted to buy. Gail Collins of the New York Times wrote last March, in a sanctimonious piece belittling opposition to the bill that they are, “a classic ‘Tea Party’ herd of straw horses.” Natalie Hildt of the Associated Press wrote two weeks ago: “The opposition to the bulb law seems to stem from a dogmatic belief that regulations always limit consumers’ choice…Consumers are gaining choices they didn’t have five years ago.” Really?
A government that can make you buy light bulbs, ones that my local hardware store regards as carrying some risk, is a government that could be telling us what to eat and where to live. George Orwell’s 1984 should be required reading in all schools and certainly by all those who work in the White House. Paternalism, even in a good cause, promotes dependency and dependency can lead to Socialism, and Socialism can lead to repression. It is a slippery slope that warrants caution. When her children misbehave, my daughter-in-law gives them a “time-out.” They are made to go sit outside the room, purportedly to reflect upon and atone for their sins. In an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, Susan Collins, Republican Senator from Maine, suggests the United States needs a time-out from regulation. She has proposed a bill that sets a one-year moratorium on such regulation, exempting those “that are needed in emergencies.” As she writes we need “a time-out from excessive regulation so that America can get back to work.” Amen.
Thought of the Day
“Light Bulbs, Regulation and Demonization of the Tea Party”
September 26, 2011According to a piece in Friday’s Investors Business Daily, federal regulation costs Americans $1.8 trillion a year – about 12.5 percent of our GDP. Much of that regulation is undoubtedly necessary, but is it all? Should government be telling us what kind of light bulbs we can buy? Is it helpful to us as a nation to have the NLRB tell Boeing that they cannot build planes in South Carolina? Are consumers of natural gas in the Northeast better served by delaying the construction of a pipeline from Canada? Was the protection of the Spotted Owl worth the costs to consumers of substantially higher lumber prices? The Senate, in tabling the House’s passage of a Continuing Budget Resolution, did so because the House version cut $1.5 billion from Department of Energy loan programs. One billion of those loans have gone to two companies – Tesla Motors and Fisker Automotive – that specialize in super high-end luxury electric cars, which sell for prices ranging north of $95,000. Are those investments designed to help the middle class? Robin Hood might have been morally justified because he robbed the rich and gave to the poor. But, in raising costs to consumers – of products as diverse as energy, food, lumber, cars and light bulbs – is not the state robbing the middle class and giving to favored manufacturers?
The answers to those questions will vary depending upon one’s personal political predilections and, more importantly, on one’s financial well being. I live in an environmentally protected area at the mouth of the Connecticut River, so I support and benefit from conservation efforts, knowing there is a cost. While the initial costs of regulation are borne by business, the consumer ultimately gets stuck with the tab. Spending almost 13 percent of GDP seems a very high cost, especially as we risk a slide into another recession and we have about 20 million unemployed or under employed.
Most people would acknowledge that government’s safety regulations, covering items like seat belts, appliance standards, doubled hull tankers, and most food and drugs, have generally been beneficial. However, it was the concern of a too-intrusive federal government that gave birth to the Tea Party in early 2009. To a large extent, the Tea Party is the extension of a group entitled Empower America, founded in 1993 by Jack Kemp, William Bennett and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Their interests lay in smaller government and empowering the individual. They were pro immigration and were not part of the religious right. As I wrote several weeks ago , both political parties have used the Tea Party for their own purposes. Democrats, fearful of any grassroots movement that does not support their cause, have demonized them. They found willing accomplices in the mainstream press. They have been successful, in the sense that the words “Tea Party” have taken on a pejorative connotation. Republicans, like Michelle Bachman, have high-jacked them for her own purposes, thereby covering them with a coating of the religious right; in the process they have diluted the Tea Party’s fiscally important message.
Four years ago, President George Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The bill required general-purpose light bulbs to be 30% more energy efficient. The standards start with 100 watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40 watt bulbs in 2014. In a statement that defies rationality, proponents of the bill argue that that the law’s requirements will increase competition, arguing, for example, that consumers will continue to be able to buy incandescent bulbs…as long as they meet the requirement of 30% greater efficiency, which, of course, is unlikely. In reality, consumers will be left buying compact fluorescent lights that have been around for decades and carry the risk of mercury, and halogen and LEDs that may have longer lives, but are far more expensive. According to my local hardware store, fluorescent bulbs aren’t selling well because of the mercury risk, but also because they don’t last as long as advertised and, in his experience, because the plastic around the light has a tendency to melt. Free markets embrace competition. Innovation is a derivative of competition. Government does set standards, but then it should let markets compete.
Unfortunately, excess government regulation tends to increase costs, limiting competition, and risking crony capitalism, as can be seen in companies as diverse as GE, Solyndra and LightSquared – a condition President Eisenhower warned of in his January 1960 farewell speech. The speech was famous for its alerting his listeners to the risks of the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.” But, a few paragraphs later he also stated: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations and the power of money is ever present…and is gravely to be regarded.”
Not surprisingly and demonstrating my thesis that liberals tend not to be liberal, mainstream media supports government intervention into what light bulbs consumers are permitted to buy. Gail Collins of the New York Times wrote last March, in a sanctimonious piece belittling opposition to the bill that they are, “a classic ‘Tea Party’ herd of straw horses.” Natalie Hildt of the Associated Press wrote two weeks ago: “The opposition to the bulb law seems to stem from a dogmatic belief that regulations always limit consumers’ choice…Consumers are gaining choices they didn’t have five years ago.” Really?
A government that can make you buy light bulbs, ones that my local hardware store regards as carrying some risk, is a government that could be telling us what to eat and where to live. George Orwell’s 1984 should be required reading in all schools and certainly by all those who work in the White House. Paternalism, even in a good cause, promotes dependency and dependency can lead to Socialism, and Socialism can lead to repression. It is a slippery slope that warrants caution. When her children misbehave, my daughter-in-law gives them a “time-out.” They are made to go sit outside the room, purportedly to reflect upon and atone for their sins. In an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, Susan Collins, Republican Senator from Maine, suggests the United States needs a time-out from regulation. She has proposed a bill that sets a one-year moratorium on such regulation, exempting those “that are needed in emergencies.” As she writes we need “a time-out from excessive regulation so that America can get back to work.” Amen.
Labels: TOTD
posted by Thought of the Day @ 7:37 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home