Good Intentions

In Good Intentions, Walter Williams, a noteworthy economics professor, discussed the unintended consequences of those good intentions.  He detailed his own youth, education, and job history compared to what was possible today (early 1980s).  Education had degraded since his time, seeing a dramatic rise in administrators at the cost of resources to the classroom.  Furthermore, efforts to give control of education to parents was foiled by teachers' unions and government.  Where he had a job as a teen for a $1/hour, a modern teen could not be hired for less than $3.35/hour.  That minimum wage, intended to protect the youth from an employer who would take advantage, limited the number of teens who could be hired.  Rather than get job experience - even for a pittance, the teen was instead unemployed.  Then there was the licensing scam.  Many governments required a license to participate in an industry.  He gave the example of driving a cab.  In Philadelphia, it cost $20,000 to get a license and thus be an independent cab driver.  By contrast, Washington D.C. only required $50.  Unsurprisingly, vastly more cabs were available in DC and there were more independent cabbies.  All too often, government efforts to assist the citizenry results in exactly the opposite.

Highly recommended.

Mutiny of the Deep State

Here is a story about how federal employees are defying President Trump and his appointees.  The story is generally sympathetic to the mutineers.  Working in government is not a right.  Long tenure does not mean that you get to set policy.  Love him or hate him, President Trump is the chief executive.  He's the boss, the top dog, the big cheese, the orange overlord.  When the Obama Department of Justice declined to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation after they had loitered with clubs at a polling station during the 2008 election, J. Christian Adams resigned and became a critic outside of government.  He disagreed with the decision of President Obama and his appointees but didn't become some mole in the administration who would leak classified data.  Too often, that is what is happening now.

 

The deep state, the regulatory state, the bureaucracy, or whatever else one might call it is profoundly unconstitutional.  The Constitution says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."  The EPA is not the Congress and yet the Federal Register returns 14,640 documents regarding EPA rules.  These rules are binding on the citizenry but they were not legislated by elected representatives; they were written by career bureaucrats who remain in their jobs for decades, regardless of which party is in office.  There are so many of these bureaucracies that Congress doesn't have the time for anything but cursory oversight.  Worse, the Congress has passed laws that limit the executive's authority (that's also unconstitutional) in managing these almost independent fiefdoms of regulatory power.  ANY rule or regulation that can result in a penalty must be legislated by the Congress.  By outsourcing legislative power under the euphemism 'regulation,' the government has experienced massive growth.

 

Sticking with the EPA, here are a few of the arms within the agency:

 

1. Office of Policy: The OP creates the regulations and is the effective legislative branch of the EPA.

2. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:  The OECA enforces the regulations, basically what an executive branch does.

3. Office of Administrative Law Judges: The OALJ adjudicates the regulations and is the judicial branch.

 

Look how convenient that is: legislative, executive, and judicial all in one agency.  Who needs separation of powers?  The separation of powers exists to prevent the consolidation of power into one entity but too many of these regulatory agencies are self-contained realms whose various parts are unlikely to provide a fair hearing to those it chooses to harass.

 

The swamp likes this cozy arrangement and is alarmed by Trump's threat to drain it, thus the mutiny.

Let the Market Decide

Spirit Airline has recently stated that it intends to charge for carry-on luggage, namely items that would be placed in overhead bins. Those items that could be stuffed under a seat (such as a purse or briefcase) would incur no charge. The thinking is that it will expedite loading and unloading of the plane, since fewer people will use the overhead bins. Is this a good idea? I don't know. However, if the policy was put in practice for a few months, Spirit could soon discover whether passengers are driven from the airline on account of the fee or drawn to it for the quick boarding and unboarding process. Ticket receipts will tell the tale.

However, the government just can't allow this. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) was incensed that the airline would dare to charge such a fee and that perhaps some legislation was needed to prevent airlines from trying to run their business in a way upsetting to Senator Schumer. At what point does a company cease to be private and merely become a pawn of government regulation? Let the company do as it will. It isn't as if Spirit is the only airline. Another airline could have a great ad campaign: "We don't charge fees for carry on luggage like some airlines." The problem will resolve itself without government intervention. But if government threatens regulation, Spirit might abandon its experiment and we'll never know if that might have been popular with many passengers.