Democrats: Dealing with the Bureaucracy Is a Real Burden!

July 26, 2013

North Carolina has passed a voter-ID law, about which the National Review editors have a good line:

The new law simply requires that voters present a state-issued photo ID such as a driver’s license or the similar ID that the state issues to non-drivers. Other forms of identification not subject to the same documentation and security standards — such as student IDs and work IDs — are not acceptable under the new law. It is really something to watch the Democrats treat a trip to the DMV as an unbearable burden: Under Democratic initiatives, everything from a trip to the doctor’s office to opening a business requires or will require running a bureaucratic gauntlet indistinguishable from a trip to the DMV.

The real-world cost (in time and money) of complying with the government’s voluminous* regulations doesn’t seem to occur to the regulators and intellectuals—it’s all a big abstraction to them, as Stephen Carter realized when he actually talked to someone on the receiving end of the regulations—unless it’s about voting.  When lawmakers try to make it more difficult to commit voter fraud, suddenly liberals remember that government regulations can be burdensome!

Lest I mock the liberals without letting them speak for themselves, read for yourself where North Carolina Democrats said that “by making voters get identification cards, the government is assuming a crime is being committed. ‘The government presumes I’m up to no good and places the burden on me,'” and their state party chairman said, “Voter ID equals voter disenfranchisement” and compared the law to a “horror villain”.  WRAL reports on comments pro and con in legislative hearings.  WFMY reports that

Democratic leaders in Raleigh see [the voter-ID law] as unnecessary and potentially burdensome on the elderly and the poor.

Durham Mayor Bill Bell told WRAL, “This is going to create a barrier that doesn’t need to be there. I mean, this day and age, we ought to be trying to encourage people to vote and give them opportunity to vote. Not put blockades in front of them.”

The Nation calls it a “a harsh new voter ID law”.  See also The Nation’s hilarious hyperventilating report when they found out what other clean-elections provisions would be in the law.

Read the whole NR editorial: “Progress in North Carolina: New clean-election standards and a law protecting unborn children have Democrats’ heads spinning.”

Related entries:

* There are now more than 160,000 pages of federal regulations!  (Exact figure: 169,301 as of the end of 2011.  U. S. Office of the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations Actual Page Breakdown (1975 through 2011). See update below.)  Just complying with these regulations costs Americans more than a trillion dollars annually—$1.75 trillion in 2008, according to an estimate from the federal government’s own Small Business Administration.  (Small Business Administration, “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms”, Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, September 2010, page iv (page 6 of PDF).)  Others who attempt to measure the regulatory burden report similar findings.  “Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually,” according to a study from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  (Washington Examiner,“$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate”, Paul Bedard, September 20th, 2012.)

Update (July 26th, 2013):  The source above (a government Web site) for my claim that there are more than 160,000 pages of federal regulations is no longer a live link.  It was when I first used it, here, last October.  Now instead consider this Congressional Research Service report: “Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register”, Maeve P. Carey (May 2013).  First, a note about using the numbers:

Because the Federal Register has been in print since the 1930s, the number of pages can be useful for crosstime comparisons. However, the total number of Federal Register pages may not be an accurate way to measure regulatory activity for several reasons. . . . In 2011, approximately 32% of the total pages in the Federal Register were in the “Rules and Regulations” section, the section in which final rules are published.

(Italics omitted.)  The author offers a longer discussion of what the numbers do and don’t mean on pages 14-16 of the document (17-19 of the PDF).  All that said, the number of pages does give some idea of the volume of laws (not even enacted directly by accountable legislators) that Americans are expected to comply with at any given time.  By this author’s way of reckoning, the number “has been approximately between 65,000 and 85,000 pages for the past two decades.”

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Democrats: Dealing with the Bureaucracy Is a Real Burden!”

  1. Snoodickle Says:

    Two points (1) as a laywer, aren’t voluminous, difficult to interpret regulations a good thing? It means more business/money in your pocket. What do you care about the broader economy, in a self-interested capitalist system, you should be looking out for number one.

    (2) It appears that Obromneycare is like Amazon Health Care! Under the brand new insurance exchanges, health insurance consumers can shop and compare policies and prices (just like on Amazon!) of health care plans. And the law is already working – the cost of individual health plans is set to drop 50% next year in New York, and there will be significant cost savings in California as well. O, the horror!


    • Don’t confuse the world as you (or liberal policy makers) hope it will be with the world as it currently is—big difference! (If people were careful to distinguish the two, would there be any liberalism left? Discuss.) If you take away the burden of actually functioning in observed reality, then sure, all kinds of government programs (in theory) work just as well as the private sector!

      Or in other words, if all it takes to make the Obamacare exchanges “just like on Amazon” is that it is planned (in theory, in the future) that “health insurance consumers can shop and compare policies and prices”, then I suppose the DMV or post office is just as good as any private retail store, because things are bought and sold in all those places? But of course the experience is very different, as even apolitical observers will tell you—heck, in the original post above, even liberals are crying at the thought that someone might have to go to the DMV.

      The exchanges still haven’t begun yet (as you put it yourself, they’re “brand new”), but already the stories are coming out about failures and setbacks:

      “the exchange software, for which the government has spent upwards of $88 million, still can’t correctly calculate the amount of subsidies that an individual applicant is eligible for.”

      “tests on the software that calculates how much your subsidy is worth, if any, only began this week, according to the Journal reporters, even though they were ‘initially scheduled to begin months ago.'”

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/20/wsj-obamacare-software-cant-reliably-determine-enrollees-eligibility-for-subsidies/

      Oops!

      That wouldn’t fly at Amazon or similar, but it’s par for the course when the government tries to do things like this, which was sort of Wintery Knight’s point in the first place.

      Since you generally fail to link to your sources, I can’t evaluate your claim about New York, but you must have missed my past posts about how, for the country as a whole, Obamacare was failing to live up to promises that it would cut costs. The latest continues to corroborate that, from the government’s own mouth:

      “Obama Campaign Promised Obamacare Would Reduce Annual Health-care Spending by $2,500 per Average Family; Obama Administration Now Admits Obamacare Will Increase Health-care Spending by $7,450 per Average Family over Eight Years”

      https://enjoymentandcontemplation.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/obama-campaign-promised-obamacare-would-reduce-annual-health-care-spending-by-2500-per-average-family-obama-administration-now-admits-obamacare-will-increase-health-care-spending-by-7450-per-aver/

      How many times do liberals have to be wrong and conservatives right about everything the nation argued about, before liberals are willing to consider the possibility that their ideology is wrong?


    • Actually, here, I’ll just give you all four of Geraghty’s points, in case you want to learn more (of course he links to his sources):

      http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/359355/first-four-obamacare-train-wrecks-many-more-come-jim-geraghty

      Just promise you won’t take it as an occasion to respond to some minor point you find there and ignore the central argument we were just having.


  2. […] for the first time, conservatives grasped the factual landscape much sooner than liberals, who eagerly bought into the pro-Obamacare narrative.  From a liberal […]


Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: