posted July 17, 2011 01:44 PM            

Government in the United States, both federal and local, has enacted laws and regulations that drag down the economy and restrict individual liberty. Some regulations are so broad that they govern entire segments of the economy, while others tell us what we can and cannot do in our own homes. As President Reagan once said, “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” Here are the Top 10 Most Egregious Government Regulations:

1. ObamaCare overkill: If you think the 2,000-plus-page ObamaCare law is a travesty, wait until you see the regulations it spawned. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is beginning to release regulations based on the health care legislation passed last year. One section on Medicare took up six pages in the original law, yet HHS turned that into 429 pages of new regulations. At that rate, there will be more than a hundred thousand pages of regulations in place for doctors to consider before seeing a patient.

2. EPA’s carbon dioxide fixation: Talk about job-killing regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in order to combat “climate change” will raise the cost of energy. Forget about creating jobs. The EPA’s regulations will add a new burden on business, increase the cost of material for the construction industry, and hit consumer in the pocketbook, dampening the outlook for economic growth.

3. Lightbulb ban: Unless Congress overturns a 2007 law, the incandescent lightbulb will be phased out in 2012, and fluorescent bulbs will be the only choice for consumers. Instead of being able to buy a 39-cent bulb, Americans will be forced to pay $6 for the energy-efficient alternative, with its harsh bright light. Do we really need Washington nanny-state legislators to decide what is “best” for us, right down to how we light our own homes?

4. TSA abuse: Whoever is writing the regulations for the Transportation Security Administration needs to lighten up. TSA officials think they are making the skies safe by patting down infants and grandmothers in wheelchairs, while giving travelers the option of being subjected to harmful radiation or on the receiving end of sexual abuse. There are plenty of other ways to ensure safety, like profiling young to middle-age male travelers from the Middle East.

5. Union favors: As payback to his Big Labor support, President Obama signed an executive order in February 2009 that tells federal agencies to require “Project Labor Agreements” on federal construction projects, meaning higher labor costs as contractors are forced to use union workers. Now the National Labor Relations Board is seeking to prevent Boeing from building a plant in South Carolina because it is a right-to-work state. By “protecting” workers, fewer jobs are created. Is that what we want?

6. Food crackdown: Federal regulators are tightening regulations on food manufacturers in order to combat childhood obesity. But as usual, the regulators are going overboard, cracking down on breakfast cereal, Girl Scout cookies, and all kinds of snack foods, including nuts, bagels and fruit juice. According to HUMAN EVENTS' Audrey Hudson, the food industry says the government is imposing “multibillions of dollars” of changes, with no evidence it will do anything to help kids stay healthy.

7. Outside smoking ban: The city of New York has made it illegal to smoke in all parks, on beaches, and in pedestrian plazas. This includes, you're hearing right, a smoke-free Times Square. That will be 1,700 parks and 14 miles of public beaches that city officials will have to monitor in case someone lights up. Don’t New York's Finest have anything better to do?

8. Trash violations: Beware of what you put in the trash, at least in New York City. The city’s Sanitation Department is enforcing a rule that says trash from households or businesses cannot be thrown in receptacles on the street meant for pedestrians. But do the workers really need to ticket elderly residents and fine them $100 for throwing their used newspapers into the trash cans?

9. Illegal garden: Julie Bass decided to grow some vegetables in her front yard because the price of organic food was on the rise. Now, she has been hit with a misdemeanor charge and is facing three months in jail, because Oak Park, Mich., says her garden violated the city code, which requires that front yards consist of “suitable, live, plant material.” The city says vegetables aren’t “suitable” for a front yard and are going to court to prove their point. Now that’s a great use of taxpayer resources.

posted July 17, 2011 02:13 PM            

as to the food-oriented ones, a lot of those regs were saps to the food corporation lobbyists just to get bills passed. but i agree they go too far.

where i live if you plant veggies in your front yard the deer will eat them, so that pathetic suit against the woman in mich wouldn't happen here! that is also a LOCAL reg, and isn't michigan one of our newly conservative states?

posted July 18, 2011 09:26 AM            

Dishwashers that don’t clean dishes, toilets that barely flush and showers that sprinkle—all are the result of government mandates that supposedly will save the environment.

Now government is back with more mandates that essentially ban the incandescent light bulb and the next target of federal regulators could well be the television cable box.

“This town is a smorgasbord of people who want to tell you how to run your life, from what light bulbs you screw into the socket, to how much water flows through your toilet,” said Rob Gordon, senior advisor for strategic outreach at the Heritage Foundation.

Bob Dorigo Jones, senior fellow with the Foundation for Fair Civil Justice, called the government actions “laws of unintended consequences.”

“To government, these might seem like common-sense improvements, but not to the rest of us,” Jones said.

In 2007, Congress imposed stricter efficiency standards on traditional incandescent bulbs that the industry now says it cannot meet. Come January, those light bulbs will effectively be banned.

“They did what industry lobbyists and green groups told them to do at the risk of the health and wallets of the American people,” says Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

But a public backlash by consumers hoarding the old bulbs that cost about 30 cents a piece compared to about $5 for the new compact fluorescent light bulbs, plus a ten-step suggestion from the EPA on how to clean up after breaking these broken bulbs made in China that contain poisonous mercury, is pushing Congress to reverse it’s de facto ban.

“Let’s get the government out of something they shouldn’t have been in the first place,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R. – Tex.), who is sponsoring the repeal legislation.

So how many congressmen does it take to change a light bulb? Not enough, apparently.

A measure to reverse the standards failed July 12 on a 233-to-193 vote, short of the two-thirds majority votes necessary to pass the bill under the rule that brought it to the floor.

Nearly a dozen Republicans opposed this version of the bill, (H.R. 2417) because it prohibits states from banning the bulb, which they claim violates the 10th Amendment and the spirit of federalism.

So said a letter the Congressional Constitutional Caucus sent to members before the vote, urging them instead to support another measure, H.R. 91.

“This legislation would have simply repealed the ban on incandescent light bulbs and returned freedom of choice to consumers throughout the United States,” the letter said.

But Barton isn’t giving up and says he will try to attach the language in H.R. 2417 to other legislation moving through the House that won’t require a two-thirds vote.

The Obama Administration opposes the bulb reversal, claiming it would “result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy.”

“In sum, the bill would hinder an opportunity to save American consumers money, while enhancing energy efficiency and reducing harmful emissions associated with energy production,” the administration said.***A perfect example of Marxist Math. 30 cents is greater than $5. A lightbulb that's 16.6 times more expensive will save consumers money! In what century will that be O'Bomber?***

While Congress struggles over what to do about the light bulb, the New York Times and some environmental groups are calling for government regulation of cable television units called set-top boxes.

A recent Times editorial points to alarming numbers that claim it takes 27 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity nationally to power set-top boxes, which the paper says roughly equals the output of nine coal-fired power plants.

“The service providers who buy and distribute set-top boxes have largely ignored the power problem because the costs are borne by customers,” said the July 4 editorial.

The Times argued that “To focus the industry on efficiency, the federal government might have to regulate the boxes the same way it does household appliances like refrigerators, which use only a fraction of the power they consumed before regulation. Then this conservation problem surely would be solved.” the editorial said.

The cited figures are based on a study by the liberal Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which was funded with a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The study says 160 million set-top boxes in 2010 cost households more than $3 billion a year. Breaking down the math, it costs consumers $18.75 a year, or a nickel a day.

The NRDC estimated that set-top boxes use 275 to 446 kilowatt hours a year, compared to a 21 cubic foot energy efficient refrigerator that uses 415 kilowatts a year.

Dirty Dishes

“Whether it’s the nanny state that makes sure you don’t do something too dangerous, to the green community making sure you leave no footprint, they are really looking to make everything zero risk,” Gordon said.

The movement to remove phosphates from dishwasher detergent began in the Washington State legislature as an environmental-protection measure for area waterways and the idea quickly spread to 15 additional states, which led to the federal ban last year.

Brian Sansoni, spokesman for the American Cleaning Institute, said phosphates in dishwasher detergent had a minimal impact on water quality, but after individual states banned it the industry was forced to spend millions of dollars to reformulate the products to remove the “workhorse” agent.

“We told legislators that people would notice a difference, and consumers have noticed,” Sansoni said.

Lori Warren, who owns two Appliance Pro stores in Lexington, Ky., said the phosphate ban was barely noticed by many consumers, who just thought their dishwasher was on the fritz.

“We have customers wanting to return a dishwasher or buy a new one, and we have to explain, over and over, that phosphates have been removed from the detergent,” Warren said. “People hate their dishwashers now.”

Warren’s advice, use Finish dishwashing detergent: “the little red ball does help,” she said.

Causing a Stink

The low flow toilet is another government intervention intended to conserve water that has frustrated the public.

Most have solved the problem by repeat flushing, which defeats the purpose of water conservation.

But for one California city, it has caused a multimillion-dollar plumbing stink, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The low-flow toilet has backed up sludge inside sewer pipes creating a rotten-egg stench, and San Francisco has spent $100 million to defuse the odor problem, including $14 million for bleach to dispel the smell.

That’s nearly nine million pounds of bleach going into the water supply that environmentalists there are now protesting.

Some enterprising showerhead manufacturers tried to get around legislation passed by Congress in 1992 that capped the spray from the nozzle at 2.5 gallons of water a minute.

Previously, bathers were allowed five to ten gallons of water a minute.

The more creative showerheads have three or more heads mounted to one fixture, which combined sprays up to ten gallons per minute.

But the Energy Department’s Office of Enforcement is putting a stop to that.

In a three-page showerhead enforcement guide issued March 4, the department essentially said that one showerhead means one showerhead, and that a showerhead with multiple nozzles constitutes a single showerhead and can dispense only a total of 2.5 gallons of water per minute.

But there’s a loophole.

The government has decided the multi-shower heads were a misunderstanding and that it would be wasteful to destroy the products that have already been manufactured.

So, regulators are allowing all of those non-compliant showering showerheads to be sold over a two-year grace period that will also allow the companies to readjust the design.

posted July 18, 2011 12:23 PM            

but i have had nothing but low flow toilets for the last decade or so and they do NOT create plumbing problems. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the flushing process is VERY SLIGHTLY different with these gadgets, but they flush perfectly well if you do it right and i have had no sewer problems resulting from them...

last i heard the bill to defeat the PERMANENT replacement of incandescents FAILED in congress. it was just a few weeks ago i heard that news blurb.

and GE has closed its last incandescent-making factory in the US so it will take a major reversal to get them back once they're all bought up. this is not only inconvenient and distasteful (fluorescent light being much harsher and at the same time colder than incandescents) but harmful to our health, it was established decades ago that fluorescents are not good for us! another "little" step in the direction of MORE PROFITS FOR GE and co, and less health for the rest of us. you don't think that GE lobbyists have anything to do with this?

and i don't know anything about dishwashers that don't clean, the new ones seem even better than the old to me...you don't have to practically wash the dishes before you put them in anymore!

however no one forces you to use a dishwasher. i don't have one and don't miss it, having only ever had ONE in all my days as a householder,

posted July 19, 2011 11:02 AM            

Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
Jon Huntsman
Gary Johnson

and possibly

Rudy Giuliani

posted July 19, 2011 11:20 AM            

and if they do insist, will that be constitutional? in other words is it okay, as in the medical field, to tell people how they HAVE TO do business, though it is illegal to tell people they have to chip in to the cost of the MANDATED care regardless of ability to pay?

posted July 19, 2011 12:14 PM            

But, in a free market economy..a conservative economy..there will always be a risk taker who will step in and produce what the public wants to buy.

posted July 20, 2011 10:28 AM            

Americans are not clammoring for more "Green" products. Americans are stocking up on incandescent light bulbs before the ban goes into effect.

In the so called "Green" economy, business after business have and still are...going out of business...after taking O'Bomber money from the so called Stimulus bill and blowing it on pie in the sky "Green" projects.

Americans are not clammoring for more "Green" products. Socialist government is banning products Americans want and need and removing their choices..or making their choices for them.

That's Nanny State Socialism.

And what is the alternative the Nanny State Socialists have provided for the incandscent light bulb?

Hint! It's got mercury in it and if you break it, you're supposed to call a hazardous waste disposal unit to clean up the mercury. Isn't that wonderful?

Has there ever been a bigger bunch of useless brain deads in the government of the United States?

Oh btw, the repeal of the light bulb ban failed in the House because...the idiots brought the measure to a vote under a rule which requires a 2/3s majority vote for repeal. It will be back under a straight vote and the ban will be gone to the dustbin of history.

posted July 20, 2011 12:37 PM            

the most ridiculously paranoiac green people i know are even more against those fluorescents than the average joe.

i'm not quarrelling about the lightbulbs. i believe they are purely a convenience and a boon to the chinese manufacturers who don't give a hang about "green".

i am saying that MOST of the stupid, petty regs you are talking about are nothing to do with t he federal govt, and the lightbulbs were on bush's watch, and the newly conservative congress refused to bring back incandescents too.

posted July 21, 2011 10:47 AM            

The law banning DDT..the most effective mosquito control ever made IS federal law.

O'BomberCare...mandating individual health insurance and mandating the coverages policies must contain IS federal law.

O'Bomber's back door attempt to skyrocket electricity rates and the cost of everything else in America comes from the EPA...under federal regulations.

O'Bomber's TSA workers are feeling up American citizens who want or need to fly and that's federal law.

O'Bomber's executive order mandating the use of UNION WORKERS on federal construction projects IS federal law.

O'Bomber's regulators in the food industry are attempting to ban everything Americans like to eat and that's federal law.

posted July 27, 2011 09:53 AM            

There's a totalatarian streak a mile wide running through every one of them. They've cobbled together their very own fable in which they're intellectually, morally and spiritually superior and everyone else should be on their knees begging them to guide everyones lives.

The problem with all this is that like most fables, leftist intellectual, moral and spiritual superiority is all bullshiiit. In the real world, these are some of the most incapable people in our society...or any society.

In their stupidity, they're now floating the idea of government control over what everyone eats. There's also a plan afoot to lay a heavy tax on what leftists consider..unhealthy foods.

These leftists better learn to "think" their thoughts but leave everyone else alone to live their own lives.

When you mess around with Coke, Pepsi and Big Mac, you're courting rebellion.

These self appointed busybodies deserve every particle of ridicule that can be heaped on them...and will be.

July 27, 2011
Food Totalitarians on Parade
Chuck Roger

Within the last few years, we have been treated to attempts by government to control our food intake with regulatory "nudges" and legislative edicts. Sugar, salt, trans-fats, fats in general, fast foods, and school lunches are just a few ingredients and food types which have come under assault by sanctimonious busybodies seeking to dictate "healthy" eating to everyone.

New York Times food writer Mark Bittman provides the latest in we-know-what's-best-for-you babble. In a Times op-ed, Bittman complains, "WHAT will it take to get Americans to change our eating habits?"

The question itself makes a fundamentally flawed assumption and exhibits arrogance. Why is it anyone's job to "get Americans to change [their] eating habits?" By posing the question in the first place, Bittman implicitly considers himself to be among a select minority tasked with providing guidance to the majority.

It doesn't take long for Bittman to shift the blame for unhealthy eating habits from eaters to providers of that which is eaten. Only six sentences into the article, he laments that "the food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods."

The statement exhibits an elemental misunderstanding of human nature and sound business practice--knowledge voids common to food totalitarians. In fact, Bittman gets cause and effect bass-ackwards. Successful businesses comprehend people's desires and market products designed to satisfy those desires. But our food writer thinks that clever advertising can alter human biology, that 175,000 years of DNA-programmed craving for calorie- and taste-laden fats can be erased from Homo sapiens. TV commercials featuring impossibly slender, scantily-clad carrots will entice the masses to give up Whoppers and Big Macs and clamor for the sensual mouth-feel of Brussels sprouts and cauliflower.

How does Bittman propose to convince America to eat more healthily? He gets specific:

The average American consumes 44.7 gallons of soft drinks annually. (Although that includes diet sodas, it does not include noncarbonated sweetened beverages, which add up to at least 17 gallons a person per year.) Sweetened drinks could be taxed at 2 cents per ounce, so a six-pack of Pepsi would cost $1.44 more than it does now. An equivalent tax on fries might be 50 cents per serving; a quarter extra for a doughnut.

Bittman exclaims, "It's fun--inspiring, even--to think about implementing a program like this."

But who will decide which foods are healthy and which foods are not? Who will set the penalties for eating the wrong stuff? Bittman supplies the answer.

We have experts who can figure out how "bad" a food should be to qualify, and what the rate should be; right now they're busy calculating ethanol subsidies. Diet sodas would not be taxed.

Ah, there it is, "the vision of the anointed," to use Thomas Sowell's words. Sowell points out that self-anointed visionaries, who see a mostly dumb humanity as moldable by a smart few, assign themselves "a special state of grace." In fact, "Those who accept this vision are deemed to be not merely factually correct but morally on a higher plane." [1] Sowell expands further, for implicit in the vision of the anointed,

...is the notion that the potential is very different from the actual, and that means exist to improve human nature toward its potential, or that such means can be evolved or discovered, so that man will do the right thing for the right reason, rather than for ulterior psychic or economic rewards.[2]

To food totalitarians, the "right thing" is the consumption of foods specified by "experts." The "right reason" is because food totalitarians decree that their decree is infallible.

posted July 27, 2011 03:15 PM            

But, leave other people alone.

When I want a burger, I grill my own. If I wanted a Big Mac, I'd buy a Big Mac. Same with Coke or Pepsi.

I eat what I want, when I want it and I don't tell others what to eat, what to drive, how hot or cool to keep their house, how low to keep their grass cut, what color to paint their house...or anything else that's none of my business.

posted July 27, 2011 05:18 PM            

why do ideologues on the right constantly tell me what my reproductive rights are?

why do they tell us who can and cannot get married?

why do I get told that if I wear a short skirt I am asking to be raped?

posted July 28, 2011 11:55 AM            

local and state regs tend to be MUCH more intrusive and more likely to be enforced.

IF you wanted to eat a big mac, you would. that is different from someone who CANNOT AFFORD to make them at home. which is a large percentage of the population. by the time you have bought the meat, buns, salad and potatoes you have spent more, not to mention the power bill for cooking and cleaning...

posted July 28, 2011 12:06 PM            

That's nonsense! That kind of math only works if you're talking about making one (1) hamburger and have to buy the meat, cheese, buns, pickles, mayo, mustard, tomato and whatever else to make just one.

There's a new invention. Some have heard of it. It's used to store perishable food for later use. Poor people have them too.

posted July 28, 2011 04:16 PM            

and while you can try buying ONE bun, TWO pieces of lettuce and a slice of tomato, i don't think it will work out too well. i live alone, and so do plenty of others. i don't eat burgers often and i prefer to cook them at home when i do but hey...there are also people who don't have stoves!

we have a growing population living under bridges, in tents and trailer parks who don't have what you consider every american's god-given right(a fridge and stove)...

posted July 28, 2011 04:35 PM            

In the land of delusion, the poor don't got lectricity, don't got runnin water, don't got no cars, don't got no gas...so, they got to take a walk out for Big Macs.