ShareThis Page
Awash in federal regs |

Awash in federal regs

Dimitri Vassilaros
| Friday, June 24, 2005 12:00 a.m

Joe Six-Pack does not care that each of the two volumes of the federal tax code is thicker than a Bible; that the federal regulations code takes up over 20 feet of shelf space (picture a row of 60 Bibles); or that there are so many new regulations that it takes at least two full-time employees to read them, let alone implement.

But he will care if his family needs a new washing machine by 2007.

“Regulations not only cost money but they limit choices and freedoms,” said Susan E. Dudley, director of the Regulatory Studies Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Mercatus is a libertarian-leaning think tank that crunches numbers and grinds out free-market solutions to economic problems. Like buying a washing machine.

The Department of Energy has ruled that, starting in 2007, consumers looking for new washing machines will be permitted to purchase only low-flow ones, according to Dudley. Regulations will ensure the machines will have less flow, but be more costly, she said.

“High-end machines will be all you can buy,” Dudley said. Low-end ones, about $300 less, are less water-efficient. The cost savings supposedly evaporate after two years.

Regulators have accomplices.

“The washing machine manufacturers asked for the regulation because consumers were not buying high-end machines,” Dudley said. The manufacturers hoped the Department of Energy would ban the product consumers like best, she said. “Energy said, ‘Sure.'”

Regs by the numbers

The Regulatory Studies Program at Mercatus just released “Upward Trend in Regulation Continues: An Analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006,” a study of the regulators’ budget and staffing for 68 federal regulatory agencies.

It’s a very dry read — until you start shopping for a new washing machine after next year.

There was a 46 percent increase in the size of the regulators’ budget just since 2000. The regulators’ budget for the 68 regulatory agencies is estimated to be $41.4 billion in 2006. That’s up from $39.5 billion in 2005, according to the study.

The fiscal year 2006 Budget of the United States Government calls for a 4.8 percent increase in outlays — way above the rate of inflation — for writing, administering and enforcing federal regulations. Could there be additional ones for Swiss cheese?

“The Department of Agriculture regulations affect the prices of products we buy,” Dudley said. “They cost more than they should.” Agriculture regulates the size of the holes of Swiss cheese. “They can’t be too small or too big,” she said.

Mercatus published a book written by Dudley that should be required reading for every high school student — and every voter in this republic. “A Day in the Life of a Regulated American Family” is just that.

From the radio alarm at 7 a.m., when the listener can hear the effect of heavy-handed government regulations controlling the airwaves and programming content, to the time the children wearing government-approved sleepwear are tucked into bed, the embedded omnipresent government regulations redefine the nuclear family and cost it over $8,000 each year.

The must-read page-turner is available through Mercatus. She might even autograph your copy if you ask.

Dudley called back later that day to say that upon further review, it is closer to 80 Bibles.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.