Maybe the story the political class is missing is not “They don’t like the Republican field,” or “They don’t like Obama.” Maybe the story is that people are tuning out altogether. Maybe they’re bored with politics, and most especially with politicians. Maybe they don’t think our government can’t (sic) solve anything. Maybe, even, our political class has done such a good job depicting the crisis we’re in that the American people, with their low faith in institutions, think nothing, really, can be done about it. So let’s check out. Let’s watch the game.
As Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch point out in The Declaration of Independents, businesses that treat their customers as badly as the Republican and Democratic parties treat theirs tend to go out of business. This may be exactly what we’re seeing.
Countries across the world have turned to democracy in recent decades. There are still a few monarchies here and there, and plenty of dictatorships. Cuba and North Korea are even keeping the last dying embers of communism alight. But more and more, democracy is seen as the way to go.
One of the first things a new democracy needs is a constitution. One of a constitution’s jobs is to establish the government’s structure — how the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are composed, what their powers are (and aren’t!), and a few rules of procedure.
The U.S. Constitution is a model of simplicity. You can read the whole thing in under a half hour. And that is the secret of its success. It doesn’t need to outline the specifics of agricultural or trade policy. That’s Congress’ job.
The EU’s de facto constitution runs well over 200 pages. Where the U.S. Constitution paints with a broad brush, the European Union fills in every last detail. Most countries, including the U.S., are turning to this top-down model and rejecting the Constitution’s more bottom-up approach.
The thinking goes, “How can something so simple be effective when the modern world is such a complicated place? The 21st century is very different from the 18th century.”
Good question. The answer is that those extra layers of complexity are precisely why a bottom-up approach is more important than ever. Top-down governance is hard enough even in a simple agrarian economy. It is impossible in a world like ours. Too many variables. The more rules there are, the easier they are to subvert.
Immigration law is second in complexity only to the income tax. In a new CEI paper, Policy Analyst Alex Nowrasteh proposes scrapping the whole thing and replacing it with a tariff. This is a much more humane approach to immigration, and in many cases will be less expensive for immigrants than the lawyers and fees they currently have to pay while they live in legal limbo. A tariff would also reduce illegal immigration by eliminating black markets. Money that currently goes to illegal smugglers and human traffickers could instead go to the U.S. Treasury. The idea can appeal to both the left and the right.
Fellow in Consumer Policy Studies Michelle Minton breaks down the FDA’s behind-the-scenes push to regulate dietary supplements nearly as strictly as prescription drugs.
Four of air travelers’ five biggest complaints are about the TSA. Right up there on the list with everyone’s favorite sexy-searchers has to be airlines’ habit of nickel-and-diming customers for checked baggage, blankets and pillows, and most anything else that isn’t bolted to the cabin floor.
This business practice, called unbundling, does help keep ticket prices low, as I’ve previously explained. But it’s still annoying; people are transaction-averse.
The Department of Transportation, knowing a good PR opportunity when it sees one, recently passed a rule forbidding one type of extra charge. Airlines may no longer charge re-booking fees if passengers re-book their flights within 24 hours of first purchasing them. Many passengers will no doubt welcome the change. The trouble, which the DOT does not acknowledge, is that it isn’t free. CNN’s Aaron Cooper explains:
The airline says the regulation forces them to hold the seat for someone who may or may not want to fly. As a consequence, someone who really does want to fly wouldn’t be able to buy that seat because the airline is holding it for someone who might or might not end up taking it.
In other words, there will be more empty seats, which costs the airline potential revenue. Passengers will also have a harder time finding a seat on nearly-full flights. That’s why Spirit Airlines, a low-fare airline that practices an extreme form of unbundling, is adding a $2 “Department of Transportation Unintended Consequences Fee.” Re-bookers’ gains come at everyone else’s loss.
It isn’t often that businesses stand up to regulators. More and more, they can be seen holding hands and gazing into each others’ eyes while dreams of increased budgets and decreased competition dance through their heads.
That’s why Spirit’s pointed sense of humor here is refreshing. The DOT isn’t taking too kindly to Spirit’s Economics 101 lesson, but then again, they’re the ones who forgot about tradeoffs. They’re everywhere.
The most recent dispatch from the Weird, Wide World of Regulation:
The Anacostia Cab Association is a D.C.-based company that hires willing employees to give rides to willing customers. The city is cracking downon them at their competitors’ behest.
Both U.S. Senate candidates in Massachusetts want to strictly limit political speech. They believe their campaigns should have free rein, but they don’t want other people to have the ability to publicly express their opinions. Jeff Jacoby has more in a wonderful column titled “Shut Up, They Explained.”
The 2012 Federal Register is already up to 4,456 pages. It’s still January.
The most bizarre regulation of the year could well be this Alabama bill “prohibiting the sale or manufacture of food or products which contain aborted human fetuses.” SB 1418 would ostensibly ban stem-cell research in the state.
A local ordinance in Suffolk, Virginia, prohibits driving motorized vehicles under their own power within city limits.
The IRS is once again making noises about wanting to do your taxes for you. I’ve written before on why this is a badidea, but it looks like I may have to explain myself a little more clearly.
The state of Georgia recently passed strict new requirements for immigrant farm workers. Immigration Policy Analyst Alex Nowrasteh looks at the results of a new report released by the state. Workers are fleeing to other states, causing a labor shortage. Some farmers find they lose less money by actually letting their crops rot in the fields rather than comply with state and federal rules.
President Obama correctly pointed out in his State of the Union speech that he passed fewer regulations in his first three years than President Bush. Over at the Daily Caller, Wayne Crews crunched the numbers and found that Bush passed 12,588 regulations to Obama’s 10,810.
That’s an average of 4,196 rules per year for Bush, and 3,603 for Obama — nearly two fewer rules per day. For those who believe that Bush was a free-marketeer, Obama has given us another nail for that myth’s well-sealed coffin.
But that doesn’t mean President Obama is less of a regulator than his predecessor. He has passed fewer rules, but they tend to cost more. Regulations are classified as “significant” if they cost over $100 million per year. There are different technical definitions for “significant,” “economically significant,” and “major.” And the Federal Register gives different counts than NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration.
With those caveats in mind, the Federal Register data have President Bush passing 30 economically significant regulations in his first three years. Obama passed 953.
The difference is more than a factor of 30. Roughly one quarter of one percent of Bush’s rules were economically significant. Almost 9 percent of Obama’s are.
What the president said on Tuesday is technically correct. But, as with almost all political statements, there is more to the story.
Our friends over at Cato have a video with spot-on analysis of last night’s State of the Union address. I particularly enjoyed Dan Ikenson’s remarks on the GM bailouts and the state of manufacturing. The auto industry in America was never in danger, as the president claimed they were. A few firms like GM and Chrysler were in danger, because they made bad decisions. The other American car companies — Ford, Toyota, Honda — were and are quite healthy.
Neal McCluskey also offers a valuable insight on why college tuition has skyrocketed — massive federal subsidies. If someone else is paying most of the bill, students and parents don’t have as much incentive to be thrifty. That allows colleges to raise prices with impunity, which they certainly have.
Welcome to CEI’s coverage of this year’s State of the Union address. Live coverage will begin at about 8:30 EST, so please check in then. If there’s an issue you’d like us to pay special attention to, please let us know in the comments.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 