Wednesday, June 19, 2013

The Regulated States of America

In "Democracy in America," published in 1833, Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary association to government regulation. "The inhabitant of the United States," he wrote, "has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to it . . . only when he cannot do without it."
Unlike Frenchmen, he continued, who instinctively looked to the state to provide economic and social order, Americans relied on their own efforts. "In the United States, they associate for the goals of public security, of commerce and industry, of morality and religion. There is nothing the human will despairs of attaining by the free action of the collective power of individuals."
What especially amazed Tocqueville was the sheer range of nongovernmental organizations Americans formed: "Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations . . . but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools."
Tocqueville would not recognize America today. Indeed, so completely has associational life collapsed, and so enormously has the state grown, that he would be forced to conclude that, at some point between 1833 and 2013, France must have conquered the United States.
Barbara Kelley
The decline of American associational life was memorably documented in Robert Puttnam's seminal 1995 essay "Bowling Alone," which documented the exodus of Americans from bowling leagues, Rotary clubs and the like. Since then, the downward trend in "social capital" has only continued. According to the 2006 World Values Survey, active membership even of religious associations has declined from just over half the population to little more than a third (37%). The proportion of Americans who are active members of cultural associations is down to 14% from 24%; for professional associations the figure is now just 12%, compared with more than a fifth in 1995. And, no, Facebook FB +0.78% is not a substitute.
Instead of joining together to get things done, Americans have increasingly become dependent on Washington. On foreign policy, it may still be true that Americans are from Mars and Europeans from Venus. But when it comes to domestic policy, we all now come from the same place: Planet Government.
As the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Clyde Wayne Crews shows in his invaluable annual survey of the federal regulatory state, we have become the regulation nation almost imperceptibly. Excluding blank pages, the 2012 Federal Register—the official directory of regulation—today runs to 78,961 pages. Back in 1986 it was 44,812 pages. In 1936 it was just 2,620.
True, our economy today is much larger than it was in 1936—around 12 times larger, allowing for inflation. But the Federal Register has grown by a factor of 30 in the same period.
The last time regulation was cut was under Ronald Reagan, when the number of pages in the Federal Register fell by 31%. Surprise: Real GDP grew by 30% in that same period. But Leviathan's diet lasted just eight years. Since 1993, 81,883 new rules have been issued. In the past 10 years, the "final rules" issued by our 63 federal departments, agencies and commissions have outnumbered laws passed by Congress 223 to 1.
Right now there are 4,062 new regulations at various stages of implementation, of which 224 are deemed "economically significant," i.e., their economic impact will exceed $100 million.
The cost of all this, Mr. Crews estimates, is $1.8 trillion annually—that's on top of the federal government's $3.5 trillion in outlays, so it is equivalent to an invisible 65% surcharge on your federal taxes, or nearly 12% of GDP. Especially invidious is the fact that the costs of regulation for small businesses (those with fewer than 20 employees) are 36% higher per employee than they are for bigger firms.
Next year's big treat will be the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, something every small business in the country must be looking forward to with eager anticipation. Then, as Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio) warned readers on this page 10 months ago, there's also the Labor Department's new fiduciary rule, which will increase the cost of retirement planning for middle-class workers; the EPA's new Ozone Rule, which will impose up to $90 billion in yearly costs on American manufacturers; and the Department of Transportation's Rear-View Camera Rule. That's so you never have to turn your head around when backing up.
President Obama occasionally pays lip service to the idea of tax reform. But nothing actually gets done and the Internal Revenue Service code (plus associated regulations) just keeps growing—it passed the nine-million-word mark back in 2005, according to the Tax Foundation, meaning nearly 19% more verbiage than 10 years before. While some taxes may have been cut in the intervening years, the tax code just kept growing.
I wonder if all this could have anything to do with the fact that we still have nearly 12 million people out of work, plus eight million working part-time jobs, five long years after the financial crisis began.
Genius that he was, Tocqueville saw this transformation of America coming. Toward the end of "Democracy in America" he warned against the government becoming "an immense tutelary power . . . absolute, detailed, regular . . . cover[ing] [society's] surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way."
Tocqueville also foresaw exactly how this regulatory state would suffocate the spirit of free enterprise: "It rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces [the] nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd."
If that makes you bleat with frustration, there's still hope.

Mr. Ferguson's new book "The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die" has just been published by Penguin Press.

6 comments:

  1. It's amazing to me how many people can keep taking the premise of trickle down economics and keep writing the same book over and over. What people like Ferguson love to preach are numbers about "economic cost" and typically, the numbers are at best an estimate and at worst, pure bullshit. What they don't talk about is "social cost". What does it cost the stability of society to make less money every year, have no benefits and so on. All that we have really done since Great Leader Reagan's revolution is succeeded in dumping that cost OFF of business and onto society via the government.

    Simultaneously, a very small fraction of America has done very well (1%) while a vast majority of America has taken substantial hits in their earning power and in their health benefits. What none of you understand or refuse to acknowledge anyway about what I'm saying is that I am not a fan of big government. I would much rather pay a higher cost in goods and see my fellow Americans actually EARN their sustinance then to have to ultimately pay higher taxes to support a corporate welfare state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For clearity Max.... do you advocate 'Trickle Up Economics'. For the most part in the history of our country rich people have started companies and paid workers... who bought things that supported the companies and all of those people worked in their communities and supported charitable good works.... I'd say that for the most part the standard of living in the USA is a darn sight better for the poorest citizen then someone of the same status in a very large number of countries.... As a matter of fact, in some of those charity commercials you can see those kids wearing hand-me-downs... perhaps from the poorest in the US who could afford to feel sorry for someone else....

      Don't get me wrong, all is not right with the world... all is not right with business.... but then again it is hard to run a business when you are told who to hire, what your business model must be, what customers you must serve and then you get to hire a staff approved to handle official government paperwork to report it all..... Its hard to have good trickle down when you have a tourniquet around your neck... Free market at work :-)....

      Climbing off of my soapbox now...

      Delete
    2. Actually, it is trickle up economics. Every time we lower taxes and deregulate, the middle class takes another hit. Why is it important to say say poor Americans have it better then poor people in some third world shit bag country? I hear that statement and the real message I believe is that American workers and poor are basically being told they should shut up if they know what's good for them. My problem with your second para is similar to the first, it sounds like we should do nothing because doing the wrong thing is bazillions of times worse then doing nothing at all.

      What bothers me is that at one time, workers here shared in the profits and had benefits and retirements that were paid for by the products they made. In the 80's we ruthlessly destroyed as much as we could of those programs but additionally went on a major campaign to vilify even the IDEA of workers making a good living. You tell me TS, have we really done anything but simply reconfigure the way profit is redistributed? Year after year, those in the 99% do worse while a very small segment is raking it in.

      As the middle class have lost benefits despite getting up and going to work everyday, their needs haven't just gone away. Thanks to lobbying and brutally effective propaganda campaigns, the super rich have convinced the working class that it is right and good to bust their ass and get nothing while those who employ them do just the opposite. Their expenses for not having enough to eat for not being able to go to a doctor are being dumped on me the tax payer and I'm sick of it. For 30+ years I've listened to this bullshit and watched it fail over and over.

      End of my soapbox rant

      Delete
    3. The definition of poor is certainly important for it is a measurement of a particular societies highs and lows. Our poor receive food, shelter, clothing, and medical care with go far beyond "basic necessities". If you want to truly judge a country look at how is weakest and most vulnerable are treated. This of course would rank the USA highly.
      The idea that all deserve food, shelter, clothing and a yacht in port is a hard sale and not a valid persuasive slogan.

      Delete
  2. What this article shows was that there was a time when the people made improvements. They improved their homes, cites, parks, schools, roadways, etc.. They did it without red tape, bureaucratic BS, and months of debate - they just did it.

    Many downtown mature trees can be traced back to women's groups who what to beautify their towns. They had meetings in homes and over coffee and tea planed all elements of things such as the planting of trees. They did wonderful jobs as many of these trees are still giving shade today in cities all across the USA.

    The planned and executed fundraising for supplies and gather support of all types. Today if a city wanted to plant A TREE what would it take? A lot of money, 100 page report, and 12 to 18 months to pull off.

    Big government is not the answer, it is the cancer of a free and creative society.

    ReplyDelete