Voice For Liberty

Tag: Regulation

  • Chemical security act would harm business, farmers

    The Kansas Meadowlark contributes coverage about a chemical security law that promises to overburden an important American industry. Even the family farm is at risk. That’s the operative word — risk. As has been reported, Congressional testimony found that the legislation could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.

    An important point of this article is the involvement of the left-wing Center for American Progress.

    Coverage of this issue on this blog is available by clicking on Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards.

    To read the coverage at the Kansas Meadowlark, click on Do we want Homeland Security telling businesses how to run their businesses? Telling farmers how to farm?

  • The Threat of Big Brother in Green Clothing

    From the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This organization, particularly its site GlobalWarming.org, is a great place to look for information about the true nature of global warming and climate change. The following announces the release of a video message that spotlights the real threat of global warming fear mongering.

    Sixty Years After the Publication of George Orwell’s Classic, Do We Face a Real “1984”?

    Washington, D.C., June 8, 2009 — Sixty years ago this week, George Orwell’s most important work of political fiction, 1984, was published. Orwell’s novel warned of the centralization of political power and the lengths that a totalitarian regime, led by Big Brother, would go to maintain its control over society.

    On this anniversary, the Competitive Enterprise Institute reminds those who value freedom of a more current threat — the crusade for global governance led by environmental activist groups in the name of combating global warming. With calls for limits on energy use, new global taxes and the regulation of individual behavior, the recent development of environmental policy has tended ever more toward greater government control and less personal freedom.

    “Environmental campaigners have long benefitted from the assumption that they have good intentions,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “Unfortunately, the modern environmental movement has focused increasingly on policies that increase government control over what business can sell, what consumers can buy and what individuals can do with their lives. Truly harmful emissions have been successfully restricted for the most part. But with the war on carbon dioxide being escalated to extreme levels, as demonstrated in the new Waxman-Markey bill, we see expanding government control become a goal unto itself.”

  • Regulation is expensive

    We often hear of the burden of excessive regulation. When we measure the cost of federal regulation, we find that the numbers are truly shocking.

    The report Ten Thousand Commandments 2009: An Annual Snapshot of the Regulatory State, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, reveals the costs of the hidden tax of regulation.

    How much does federal regulation cost? “A very rough extrapolation from an estimate of the federal regulatory enterprise by economist Mark Crain estimates that regulatory compliance costs hit $1.172 trillion in 2008.”

    To put that in perspective, federal income tax collections in 2008 were $1,145.7 trillion — just about the same number. Corporate income taxes were $304.3 billion, or just 30% of the cost of regulation.

    As the report explains, regulation is often a way to government to do the things it wants without having to explicitly pay for it:

    The government can also “fund” programs or achieve its objectives by regulating the private sector. Regulation can advance government initiatives or goals without using tax dollars. Rather than pay directly and book expenses for new initiatives, the federal government can require the private sector (and state and local governments) to pay for federal initiatives through compliance costs.

    It would be one thing if regulation accomplished its goals. But often it doesn’t. Regulation didn’t protect the victims of Bernard Madoff, for example. Despite federal inspectors being in food processing plants on a permanent basis, we still have food-borne illness.

    Then, as shown in Regulation can backfire, benefit wrong parties, sometimes large companies figure that they can bear the costs of regulation better than their competitors. Another example is Walmart’s support of higher minimum wage laws. That company already pays its employees more than most state minimum wage laws require. But their competitors — often small “mom and pop” businesses — may not. So it’s a competitive advantage for Walmart to force their competitors to pay higher wages.

    Regulations are also made without the benefit of the legislative process.

  • Chemical security act could affect Wichita water rates

    The United States Congress is considering legislation that aims to increase the security of America’s chemical industry to terrorism threats. The legislation, if passed, would require chemical companies to substitute government-mandated processes and technology for their current processes. The post Chemical security law goes beyond protection explains more about this legislation.

    Even places that we might not consider to be “chemical plants” could fall under this act.

    The Center for American Progress — described by Wikipedia as “a liberal political policy research and advocacy organization,” an understatement if there ever was one — has produced a report titled Chemical Security 101: What You Don’t Have Can’t Leak, or Be Blown Up by Terrorists.

    The Wichita Water Treatment Plant appears on their list of 202 additional facilities that should be required to change their processes, according to the report. The Wichita plant appears because it uses chlorine to treat drinking water, and, apparently, because it’s located in a large city.

    I asked David Warren, Director of Utilities for the City of Wichita, about the proposed legislation and about the Wichita Water Treatment Plant being on a list of dangerous facilities.

    While declining — understandably so — to discuss specifics of security at the Wichita plant, he said that if the legislation passes and is found to apply to Wichita’s plant, “it would require expensive changes in our treatment process.”

    He also said that the reason for the Wichita plant’s inclusion on the list is due to its location (near the center of Wichita) rather than to any defect in security precautions.

    It would be one thing if these changes were necessary and would contribute to national security. But Congressional testimony found that the legislation could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.

    Wichita water rates are already on the rise as the city undertakes capital improvement projects. It’s unknown how much bills might increase if the water plant was forced to make changes to its treatment technology.

    But even slight increase can cause hardship. Last year Wichita city council member Lavonta Williams expressed concern that a $1 per month increase in water bills would be a hardship. And in her campaign last year, she stated “We need to start the conversation with service providers about whether we can offer laid-off workers reduced rates for water, heat and other essential services.”

  • Let representatives know about Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act

    As reported in this website, Congress is considering legislation that threatens to harm the American economy, while at the same time accomplishing little or none of its stated goals.

    Articles like Chemical Facility Security Authorization Act threatens American economy give more detail.

    It’s important to let your elected representatives in Washington know how harmful this proposed law will be to a vital American industry.

    An easy way to let them know is by clicking on this link: Ask Your Legislator to Oppose the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act. This will take you to a form where you fill in your name and address. The site will determine who are your representatives and show you the letter it has created. Then, you can choose to have the site send it for you, or you can print it and mail it yourself.

    Either way, it’s important to act.

  • Chemical facilities act would increase cost, not safety

    Update: Let your elected representatives in Washington know about this legislation. Send them a message by clicking here.

    As reported earlier, the United States Congress is considering legislation — the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards — that will increase regulation on chemical plants and facilities. Even the Wichita Water Works is on a list of facilities that would possibly be required to undergo expensive modifications if this new law passes. (See Chemical security law goes beyond protection)

    The proposed legislation, however, would extend government control into another of our nation’s most important industries. It would require companies to change their manufacturing processes and substitute products in the name of safety.

    But the legislation may not produce its intended effect. Congressional testimony found that this could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.

    Here’s a letter from a Texas industry group that explains the problems with the proposed legislation.

    (This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

    Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Facility Standards Letter From Texas Chemical Council

  • Chemical Facility Security Authorization Act threatens American economy

    Update: Let your elected representatives in Washington know about this legislation. Send them a message by clicking here.

    Earlier this week I reported on legislation being considered by Congress that would, under the lofty goal of national security, impose a huge burden on the American chemical industry. (Chemical security law goes beyond protection)

    Our agricultural industries need to be concerned, too. The article Homeland Security To Regulate Farm and Ranch Inputs? details some of the harm that excessive government interference will cause.

    For example, the legislation “proposes to mandate the government to take a large measure of control over products and processes in the chemical industry, much like it has taken over leadership, compensation and control functions at some banks, insurance and auto companies. … A government bureaucracy would be given power to mandate product substitutions, formulation changes and changes in processes … But interference with product formulation and the complicated processes worked out scientifically over years of research and experience is not the proper purview of government security regulators or environmental activists. It is a separate issue from security and terrorism. Such interference is more likely to create new manufacturing and worker safety hazards.”

    This article gives us a hint at what may be the real motivation behind this legislation: “Interestingly, it is environmental activist groups, many of whom oppose mainstream agriculture’s use of any chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and fossil fuels to produce America’s robust food supply, who are pushing this legislative reach to mandate private industry’s products and processes.”

    Wrapping an extremist environmental agenda in the trappings of national security may be an effective scare tactic, but it’s not a good way to formulate national policy.

  • Chemical security law goes beyond protection

    Congress is about to consider legislation that, on the surface, seems like it implements an important goal. Its name — Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards — suggests something that no one could oppose.

    The proposed legislation, however, would extend government control into another of our nation’s most important industries. It would require companies to change their manufacturing processes and substitute products in the name of safety. But the legislation may not produce its intended effect. As the letter below states: “Congressional testimony found that this could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.”

    If you need to know just how bad this bill is, consider that the Center for American Progress, founded by Herbert M. Sandler and Marion O. Sandler, is squarely behind it.

    Radical environmentalists seek to destroy American industry any way they can. Using an unimpeachable issue — our national security and anti-terrorism — to advance their goals is just another of their tools.

    Following is a letter from a coalition of industry groups that explains some of the issues surrounding this legislation.

    Dear Member of Congress,

    We represent American businesses and local city services that provide millions of jobs and our national infrastructure. Protecting our communities and complying with federal security standards is a top priority for us.

    We support straightforward legislation to reauthorize the DHS chemical facility security standards enacted by Congress in 2006. We also support Congress enacting into statute the regulatory framework that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) carefully established and is now enforcing, known as the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards.” Removing the sunset date and making the chemical security regulations permanent would provide the certainty needed to both protect our citizens and enable our economic recovery.

    However, we strongly urge you to oppose disrupting this security program by adding provisions that would mandate government-favored substitutions, weaken protection of sensitive information, impose stifling penalties for administrative errors, create conflicts with other security standards or move away from a performance (or risk-based) approach.

    For example, last year’s “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act” could have caused disruptions of new federal security standards and reduced jobs in the short term, and in the long term weakened infrastructure protection and economic stability.

    Our top concern is that legislation could go beyond security protections by creating a mandate to substitute products and processes with a government-selected technology. Congressional testimony found that this could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect. Such a standard is not measurable and would likely lead to confusion, loss of viable products, prohibitive legal liability, and business failures.

    We ask that you ensure that any security legislation avoid overlap and conflict with existing federal security requirements, such as the U.S. Coast Guard’s “Maritime Transportation Security Act.” Any proposal must also protect from release any sensitive security information on site vulnerability.

    Companies in thousands of communities are complying with the landmark new DHS chemical security standards while continuing to provide essential products and services for our daily lives. We believe that counter-productive adjustments to the current law would undermine security and endanger businesses in communities all around the country. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

    Update: Let your elected representatives in Washington know about this legislation. Send them a message by clicking here.

  • Regulation can backfire, benefit wrong parties

    Regulators — no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how noble their cause — usually fail to achieve their goals. Here’s a look behind the scenes of how things can work.

    In a Washington Examiner article, Timothy P. Carney relates this story:

    There’s a metaphor popularized by economist Bruce Yandle that is useful in explaining efforts to regulate anything from energy to toy safety. Call it the Tale of the Baptist and the Bootlegger.

    Picture a small-town Southern politician after Prohibition’s repeal. Call him Jones. Jones’ campaign needs both cash and a winning issue. The state’s most prolific bootlegger comes and offers Jones both. “I can bankroll your entire campaign. You just need to outlaw alcohol in the county. If you close down the bars and clear the liquor out of the corner stores, the men will all have to come to me for their fix.”

    Jones, with newly heavy pockets, walks down to the Lady’s Temperance Hall and declares, “Ladies, I’m running to end the scourge of alcohol in this town, and I’m asking for your support.” At his campaign kickoff the next week, Jones has the entire Temperance Union and the local preacher onstage endorsing him, and of course, he’s got the pipeline of alcohol cash from the rumrunner who will get even richer when the county goes dry again.

    This appears in his article How Philip Morris benefits from tobacco regulation. It’s a revealing tale of how industry — specifically big and powerful companies in an industry — benefit from regulation designed to control them.