regulations

Regulation of the Day 179: Giving Food to Homeless People

by Ryan Young on June 6, 2011 · 2 comments

in Regulation of the Day

Last Wednesday, three people were arrested in Orlando for giving food to homeless people in a local park. They violated city regulations that require “groups to obtain a permit and limits each group to two permits per year for each park within a 2-mile radius of City Hall.” The rules apply to events that give food to over 25 people; the arrestees fed about 40 people.

Their charitable work could cost them each a $500 fine and up to six months in jail. All three are affiliated with a group called Food Not Bombs that regularly gives meals to homeless people. The Wednesday event that led to the arrests was a deliberate resistance to the ordinance. Hopefully they will succeed in overturning it; the last thing government should do when people try to help each other is get in the way.

Regulation of the Day 168: When Chickens Mate

by Ryan Young on April 29, 2011

in Agriculture, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

In Hopewell Township, New Jersey, chickens are only allowed to mate on 10 pre-selected days per year. And that isn’t the only law that poultry must follow. They must be disease-free in order to mate. There are to be no more than six hens per half-acre lot. And roosters must keep their crowing in check — violating Hopewell’s strict crowing regulations means a two-year banishment from the property they disturbed.

The Environmental-Industrial Complex

by Ryan Young on April 12, 2011

in Economy, Environment, Regulation

Sometimes the green part of green regulations isn’t the environment. It’s money.

Economics says that people act according to their incentives. Public choice theorists say that politicians and regulators also act according to their incentives — just like the rest of us. Those incentives include maximizing agency budgets and winning elections.

This short video from Reason.tv shows public choice theory in action:

Wine and Cheese Gift Baskets: Illegal in New York State

by Angela Logomasini on December 9, 2010 · 5 comments

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Here’s a whole new spin to “assembly required.” It is against New York State law to ship wine and cheese in one box, basket, or any package. Ditto for wine and chocolate. In fact, if you want to ship any food item along with wine to someone in the state, make sure you ship them in separate boxes. Recipients can then assemble them upon opening.

This is just one of a host of silly state-level regulations. This particular rule is a byproduct of the state’s ban on supermarket sales of wine and spirits. To achieve that end, state a law bans the sale of wine and spirits in places that sell food and wine for off-premise consumption. Supposedly, such rules protect us from ourselves — keeping consumers from over-indulging by making the purchase of alcohol less convenient.

In reality, these laws are designed to provide special-interest protections for existing wine retailers. To ensure liquor stores get all the profits, you must go to the supermarket for your food and make a separate stop at the liquor store (if you can find one) for your wine or spirits. And you must assemble your gift baskets at home.

Last year, legislators in New York considered revising this law, but changes never materialized. The same goes for Colorado and Tennessee. And a number of other states impose bans on food retailers from selling alcohol for off-premise consumption. Some states at least allow beer and some allow wine and beer in supermarkets. And a good number allow all alcohol to be sold in supermarkets – proving that convenience doesn’t promote immorality and alcohol abuse.

Let’s hope 2011 rings in both cheer and change. Just maybe New York, Colorado, and Tennessee legislatures will reconsider legislation that would allow consumers to buy wine and cheese all in one convenient location!

Image credit: swanksalot’s flickr photostream.

Political Pessimism, Human Optimism

by Ryan Young on August 19, 2010

in Economy, International, Personal Liberty, Zeitgeist

Despite my pessimism (realism?) about politics, ever since reading Julian Simon, I have been an optimist when it comes to progress and the human condition. Since the industrial revolution, each generation has lived longer and better than the last. By that measure, the last decade was the best in human history.

This despite the last decade being an unmitigated political disaster, at least in America. President Bush grew government faster than any president since Lyndon Johnson. Between new health care entitlements, massive energy and farm bills, two wars, and more than 30,000 new regulations, the Bush administration was no friend of limited government.

President Obama has so far been no better. If anything, his policies are George W. Bush’s on steroids.

Fortunately, the institutional foundations of the market economy are stronger than any bumbling politician. Wherever there is peace, stability, tolerably low corruption, and secure property rights, people will make their lives better over time, despite meddlesome regulators getting in the way. The pattern is global.

Via Ronald Bailey, a brilliant article in Foreign Policy reinforces that point. Things really are getting better. The last decade was the best in human history. Read the whole thing. If you’re despairing over the state of the world, the data are a wonderful cure for pessimism. Here’s a taste:

Consider that in 1990, roughly half the global population lived on less than $1 a day; by 2007, the proportion had shrunk to 28 percent — and it will be lower still by the close of 2010. That’s because, though the financial crisis briefly stalled progress on income growth, it was just a hiccup in the decade’s relentless GDP climb.

140 New Regulations in Florida

by Ryan Young on July 1, 2010 · 1 comment

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Florida has one busy legislature. They spend their time on everything from the amount of toilet paper in restaurant bathrooms to fake testicles on the back of pickup trucks.

The mighty Solons of Florida have just passed a whopping 140 new regulations. Hopefully residents can keep them all straight! Highlights:

-If you sell horse meat for human consumption, you should be aware of new labeling rules.

-It is now illegal to own a Burmese python in Florida.

-Or a bong, for that matter.

-Florida’s $100 limit for poker buy-ins is repealed. There is no longer a limit on buy-in amount.

-Want to coach your kid’s youth sports team? You will have to pass a background check.

-The next time you buy over-the-counter cold medicine, you will have to show ID and sign a form.

Regulation of the Day 136: Off the Record

by Ryan Young on April 30, 2010

in Regulation of the Day

If you work for the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a regulation requires you to keep records of your off-the-record communications.

Which means off-the-record communications aren’t really off the record.

In fact, 18 CFR 385.2201(b) requires FERC to post a notice in the Federal Register whenever this happens. There was one today, for example. It’s public!

Which brings up the following conundrum: if FERC policy is that off-the-record communications are actually on the record, then there are no off-the-record communications. Therefore, regulations applying to off-the-record communications are at best redundant , because there are no off-the-record comments.

Oh, never mind.

Regulation of the Day 135: Mustache Nets

by Ryan Young on April 28, 2010

in Regulation of the Day

CORRECTION: It appears that I’ve been had. Commenter Dietsch at Jacob Grier‘s blog points out that the article was probably an April Fool’s joke. There are such things as beard net regulations on the books in various cities. But this particularly amusing story appears not to be true; probably for the better.

Hair nets have been a staple of the food service industry for a long time. They are not the most dignified fashion accessory. But they serve a useful purpose. Just like church and state, hair and food are best kept separate. Hair nets are a much easier way to accomplish that goal than, say, mandatory baldness for all kitchen staffs.

Which brings us to the latest fad in Brooklyn’s trendy Cobble Hill neighborhood: mustache nets. For some reason,Victorian-themed restaurants and bars are all the rage right now. Bars are redecorating with old-fashioned furniture and artwork. Bartenders are redecorating themselves with outlandish 19th-century facial hair, from mutton chops to handlebar mustaches.

Unfortunately, a regulation from approximately the same time period is getting in the way of all this nostalgic fun. New York State law requires all persons with facial hair who are serving food or drink to wear a mustache net.

Regulators have been cracking down on un-netted mustaches. They have cited several establishments, as Chow reports:

The crackdown was a surprise to restaurant employees—one bartender apparently panicked and attempted to hide behind a taxidermied warthog. However, many of those cited have remained defiant.

“I’d be happy to have my staff wear mustache nets—if I could find a sustainable source,” said a representative of one of the establishments targeted in the raid. “And so far, I have not found a mustache net farm whose mustache netting practices I believe in.”

It’s pretty easy to see why the nets aren’t very popular. A Google image search for “moustache net” yields this picture:

mustache-net

Doesn’t exactly befit the image of a chic bartender. But in New York, that’s the law.

Congressional Bill Threatens Direct Shipping of Wine

by Angela Logomasini on April 21, 2010 · 1 comment

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

This week, the National Beer Wholesalers Association members descend on Washington for their annual legislative conference and lobbying visits to Congress. High on their agenda is a bill (HR 5034) that would limit consumer freedom by allowing states to prevent direct-to-consumer shipping of alcohol–trumping the Supreme Court ruling, Granholm v. Heald. Under Granholm, states are not allowed to pass laws that discriminate between in-state and out-of-state wineries unless the state can show that there is no other way to meet state policy objectives associated with such things as tax collection and protection of minors, etc. The bill would shift the burden of proof, requiring that plaintiffs show that a state law does not serve the state’s policy goals in even the smallest way. It reads [emphasis added]:

(c) Presumption of Validity and Burden of Proof- The following shall apply in any legal action challenging, under the Commerce Clause or an Act of Congress, a State or territory law regarding the regulation of alcoholic beverages:

`(1) The State or territorial law shall be accorded a strong presumption of validity.

`(2) The party challenging the State or territorial law shall in all phases of any such legal action bear the burden of proving its invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

`(3) Notwithstanding that the State or territorial law may burden interstate commerce or may be inconsistent with an Act of the Congress, the State law shall be upheld unless the party challenging the State or territorial law establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the law has no effect on the promotion of temperance, the establishment or maintenance of orderly alcoholic beverage markets, the collection of alcoholic beverage taxes, the structure of the state alcoholic beverage distribution system, or the restriction of access to alcoholic beverages by those under the legal drinking age.’.

The NBWA says that the bill will simply “clarify” Granholm requirements and promote an “orderly market.” In reality, rather than clarify, it overturns Granhom by allowing any protectionist law that might arguably in some tiny way serve any goals associated with: “temperance,” “orderly markets,” tax collection, regulation of distribution, or enforcement of the legal drinking age. And the law would stand even where other–likely much better–means of meeting such goals exist. This serves wholesalers, making sure that all wine passes through them before reaching consumers.

Congress can make these changes since the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution allows it to grant states certain rights to regulate interstate commerce. But without congressional consent, the “dormant commerce clause” bars such protectionist state laws.

According to Wine America, which represents wineries: “NBWA’s legislation would, without any justification, allow states considering alcohol beverage measures to virtually ignore the Commerce Clause and federal law in all but the narrowest circumstances”. Tom Wark notes on Fermentation: “[t]his new law would provide a state with the ability to simply announce that the discriminatory law is meant to protect minors or assure tax collection…NOT THAT the discrimination is the only way of protecting minors or assuring tax collection. This is important. It gives states free reign to do what they like and renders the bill’s ‘may not facially discriminate’ language meaningless.”

It’s worth noting that these laws not only harm consumers, they impose serious burdens on small wineries–making it difficult for them to survive. Check out this video on the impact for wineries.

Image credit: wallyg’s photostream on flickr

Tax Freedom Day

by Ryan Young on April 9, 2010 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Regulation

Today, April 9, is Tax Freedom Day. The good folks at the Tax Foundation calculated how much money local, state, and federal governments harvested last year from taxpayers ($3,469,000,000,000), and compared that to national income ($12,901,000,000,000). At 26.89 percent of national income, you basically work until April 9 just to pay off your taxes.

April 9 is the national average; different states have different tax burdens, so Tax Freedom Day actually varies from state to state. If you live in Alaska, you already celebrated Tax Freedom Day on March 26. But if you live in Connecticut, you have to keep the champagne on ice until April 27.

That isn’t the whole picture, though. The federal government spends far more than it taxes. $1,414,000,000,000 more, last year alone. The burden of federal deficit spending adds another 40 days. Not even counting state and local deficit spending, that puts us out to May 19 by my calculations (May 17 by the Tax Foundation’s).

Even that’s not all. The hidden tax of federal regulation cost businesses and consumers an additional $1,187,000,000,000 last year, according to Wayne Crews’ soon-to-be-released 2010 edition of Ten Thousand Commandments (previous editions are online here). None of that extra trillion-plus actually shows up in the federal budget. Regulation eats up an additional 9.2 percent of national income, or 8.3 percent of GDP. So you have to work an additional 34 days until you pay off the federal regulatory burden.

It’s tempting to brush off regulatory costs, since most of them are borne by businesses. But remember, businesses pass on their costs to consumers. You pay for the regulatory state. Its costs are real.

Adding together total taxes, plus federal deficit spending, plus federal regulations pushes us out to June 22 by calculations, or June 20 by the Tax Foundation’s.

And remember, that’s leaving out state and local deficit spending. Nor does it count state and local regulations. I don’t have the data handy for that. But if they add up to at least $460,000,000,000 then we’re past the half-way mark of the year. Just to pay for government.

Even using the larger number of GDP ($14,253,000,000,000 in 2009), and leaving state and local deficit spending and regulation, we’re still talking 42.9 percent of the economy going to pay for government. That’s 157 days out of the year. You’re not free until June 6 even by that generous measure.

I’d argue that government has grown too big, but the data have already done that for me.

← Previous Entries