Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Posts

How Bureaucrats And Their Socialist Designs Ruin Everything From Dishwashers To Gas Cans To Cars.

/in /by

Have you ever wondered why dishwashers today take twice as long to do a worse job of cleaning dishes? Or why it’s so much harder to get gasoline out of a new gas can? Or why cars made decades ago always turn heads, while today’s are drab in the same way?

There’s a simple answer to these modern-day mysteries: Government regulators.

Take the dishwasher. Earlier this month, the Department of Energy announced that it would revise its rules regarding dishwasher efficiency. Why? Because the existing rules — which set limits on how much electricity and water a dishwasher may use — are forcing manufacturers to build machines that are worse than ever.

The DOE was responding to a petition from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which found that average dishwasher cycle times climbed from just over an hour back in the mid 1980s to two-and-a-half hours today — with each increase in between the result of increasingly strict federal efficiency mandates.

“It is not technologically feasible to create dishwashers that both meet the current standards and have cycle times of one hour or less,” the petition stated.

Shouldn’t dishwasher efficiency be something that the market dictates? Consumers trade off convenience for savings every day. Why should dishwashers be any different? Particularly when the regulations result in a savings of something like $2 a month.

Government Gas Cans

If CEI wins this battle for consumers, it might want to petition the government to let people buy gas cans that work properly. Most homeowners of a certain age will remember those good old gas cans that had a spout at one end, and a small resealable vent at the other. The vent let air in while the gasoline was pouring out.

But regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t like that simple solution to the physics of pouring liquids. They decided old-style gas cans were too polluting and let too much gas spill on the ground.

So the EPA decreed in 2009 that gas cans must henceforth have: 1) A single, self-venting opening for filling and pouring with no separate vents or openings and 2) a nozzle that automatically closes when it’s not being used.

The result was a gas can with complicated nozzles that can be difficult to handle, are prone to breaking, cost more, and make it harder to pour gasoline. In frustration, people started drilling vent holes in their EPA-approved gas cans and entrepreneurial companies started selling nozzle replacement kits.

Socialist Car Designs

Next, CEI could go after federal regulators who’ve managed over the course of several decades to completely ruin car designs.

Think about it. Why is it that cars made 40 years ago or more are captivating, and varied, with real personalities, while new cars today are, for the most part, indistinguishable?

The reason is that there’s basically only one way to design a car today that meets all the government-imposed safety and environmental regulations.

Jeffrey Tucker, writing for the American Institute for Economic Research, notes that “the designs of new cars are boring because regulations forced this result.”

Today, the government dictates nearly every single aspect of a car’s design. Big fronts for safety, low tops for fuel economy, tiny windows, high belt lines, etc. That’s just the exterior. Almost every feature of a car’s interior is also regulated by government.

One car designer noted that “I know of at least one vehicle … that was discontinued entirely because changing curtain airbag regulations would have meant the entire shape of the vehicle had to be redesigned.”

There are plenty of other examples like this of regulators making products worse. Toilets that don’t flush, showerheads that don’t allow sufficient water flow, and other modern product failures, are courtesy of the nanny state.

And all of this, mind you, is just the tip of the regulatory pyramid, with decades upon decades of rules, mandates, and regulations now affecting nearly every aspect of our economy. Has this monstrous regulatory state improved the quality of our lives?  If the above is any indication, the answer is most likely no.

John Merline was Deputy Editor of Commentary and Opinion at Investor’s Business Daily, and was a member of the editorial board of USA Today.  This article first appeared at Issues and Insights.

Got a License for That Sandcastle? If Not, You Might Face Jail Time in One City

/in /by

Bryant Rylee lives a seemingly simple life. Before the state intervened in his life, his Facebook page—which has a modest 591 friends—was relatively quiet. However, that was before a sandcastle built by his son caused the city of Panama, Florida, to threaten him with a $500 fine and up to 60 days in jail, a threat that caused his Facebook page to get its “fifteen minutes of fame.”

Sandcastles are the epitome of childhood innocence and the manifestation of youthful creativity and wonder. As adults embarking on a day at the beach, we see only grains of sand that serve as nothing more but an uneven cushion beneath our feet. For children, the sand is a blank slate upon which they can build anything they want—kingdoms included.

Anyone who grew up or spent a great deal of their childhood on an American coastline knows the joy of playing in the sand.

Whether they are indeed putting their burgeoning engineering skills to good use and building intricate sandcastles with high towers and moats to guard against their siblings and rogue seagulls, or are building vast holes in which to bury each other, both are apparently illegal if you are spending the day on Panama City Beach in Florida.

The Law Strikes Back

As Florida residents, a day at the beach is pretty typical for the Rylee family, and this particular day in late March seemed no different than any other. As his son began carving out the foundation for his kingdom, Rylee was approached by a law enforcement officer patrolling the beach under the guise of looking out for public safety.

Rather than compliment the boy on his impressive building skills, the officer on the scene told the Rylee family that they were breaking the law and would be fined accordingly.

The Rylee family must have initially thought this was a joke since there did not appear to be any “criminal activity” going on. There were no drugs, alcohol, or any other dangerous or hazardous items—except for metal sand toys.

Apparently, the use of metal sand toys—like shovels and buckets—are forbidden on Panama City Beach, though few locals could tell you this because very few actually know this is illegal. Additionally, it is illegal to dig a hole that is deeper than two feet and likewise, longer than two feet.

Since Rylee’s son’s castle was only one foot deep, he was able to talk his way down to a $25 fine, but the situation only escalated from there.

Rylee has been coming to Panama City Beach for thirteen years and has used metal tools to dig with for just as long. As any informed and wise individual would do, Rylee asked for the proof that this was, in fact, an illegal act by asking for the corresponding ordinance number that was to be used to levy this $25 fine.

His audacity to dare question the power of the state apparently made the female law enforcement officer on the scene uncomfortable, which caused her to call for backup. Within minutes four additional beach patrol units swarmed the scene and surrounded Rylee’s family.

While this did at least bring some attention to the brilliant beginnings of the sandcastle Rylee’s son had started building, this was a bit of an overreaction considering this was a young child playing in the sand and not a cartel drug bust.

Why Am I Being Punished?

Additionally, it is unclear if any actual criminal activity or otherwise public safety issues were ignored because four officers were called away from their work to discuss the matter of a sandcastle.

Upon reaching the scene, one officer told Rylee that if he and his son would just fill in the hole, and rescind his request to see the ordinance, the “gracious” state would let him go without any fine. While this sounds bizarre, it seems this offer was most likely given because truthfully, the officers themselves did not even know what the ordinance number was or what the actual ordinance entailed.

Rylee refused and insisted on paying a fine if he could at least see the ordinance that declared his son’s activities to be illegal. According to his Facebook post, Rylee said it took officers 20 minutes to track down the actual ordinance before being able to show him why he was being punished.

While Rylee, a devout Christian, says he supports law enforcement and prays “daily for their protection,” he also said on his social media account that, “I do believe that ‘we the people’ have a right to ask what ordinance number or to see the ordinance.”

Rylee is absolutely correct. In the American legal system, there is a pillar of jurisprudence known as Mens rae, which is latin for “guilty mind.” The principle itself comes from the latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which translates to, “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.”

This is a standard test of criminal liability that asks the state to consider whether or not a person has broken a law knowingly before guilt can even be assessed.

Obviously, while there are some crimes, like murder, that are commonly understood to be illegal and immoral, there are other frivolous city and state ordinances, like the one used against Rylee, that most average Americans would never know they are breaking. Thus, imposing fines and threatening jail time for crimes that are committed “on accident” is not only immoral, it goes against the very foundation of justice.

While Rylee did, in fact, ask to see the ordinance, this was after he was already accused of a crime he did not knowingly commit. Without the foreknowledge that there was even any statute to be broken, this situation should never have escalated this far or even happened at all. But this is what happens when a government grows too large to maintain.

When Regulations Prevent the Private Sector from Being Charitable

/in /by

The American Royal’s World Series of Barbecue is a longstanding tradition for community members of Kansas City, Missouri. Since 1899, the event has attracted the most talented barbecue chefs from all corners of the state, who gather annually to show off their skills. With so many BBQ experts in one place, there tends to be a fair amount of leftover food once the festivities come to a close.

Hating to waste such a vast amount of quality barbecue, some of the event’s BBQ gurus got together and founded the charitable group, Kookers Kare. Partnering with the Harvesters Community Food Network, Kookers Kare has made a tradition of donating the leftover food to local homeless shelters at the end of each annual event.

This year, the two groups collected over 3,000 pounds of meat and 1,200 pounds of sides, all bound for a local nonprofit organization called Hope City, where it was to be served to over 3,000 homeless citizens in need. However, the Kansas City Health Department put the kibosh on Kookers Kare’s attempts to feed the homeless before anyone was even able to enjoy the food.

Claiming they had no foreknowledge of this charitable tradition, the health department forbid the food from being served to the needy. Suspiciously, the inspectors just happened to be doing a random inspection of Hope City the day the BBQ arrived.

“All of that food was uninspected, so that makes it from an unapproved source, it cannot be served to the public,” Kansas City Health Department Operations Manager Joe Williamson said in response to the department’s decision to stop the food from being consumed.

The health department did not stop at simply forbidding the food from being served, they demanded that it be destroyed immediately. Those who had worked diligently to collect the food were forced to douse over 3,000 pounds of award-winning barbecue food with bleach, in order to ensure its destruction and appease the local health department. Meanwhile, 3,000 homeless individuals went without a meal that day.

After receiving negative feedback when this story surfaced in the news, the health department doubled down on its decision by saying, “3,000 people a year die of foodborne illness, so this is nothing to play with, it’s very serious.”

Harvesters Community Food Network Director of Communications, Sarah Biles lamented the health department’s decision and commented, “We’ve had a great partnership and we’ve been able to collect that food over the years. However, in recent year’s food safety regulations have gotten tighter and more strict and continue to change.”

For charitable individuals, giving back to their communities should not be an act that is tightly regulated by government entities. Instead, these volunteers should be met with open arms and positivity from state entities, rather than being demonized unless they have first sought the government’s seal of approval.

As disappointed as these volunteers may be, we can only imagine the disappointment among the 3,000 people who were denied a hot meal.

When Too Many Regulations Harm Health Care Consumers

/in /by

Caring Hearts Personal Home Services is an organization in Kansas which offers nursing care and physical therapy to Medicare patients who, for health reasons, are unable to leave their homes and are considered to be “homebound.” Though Caring Hearts has been a huge help to many in its community, the organization recently found itself at odds with the federal government.

Since the organization caters to Medicare patients, it is subject to oversight from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  A recent audit by CMS led to claims that several of Caring Hearts’ patients did not meet the qualifications necessary to be labeled as “homebound.”

As a result, CMS was demanding repayment from Caring Hearts for all services that CMS deemed “unreasonable and unnecessary.” CMS asserted that Caring Hearts rendered $800,000 worth of services that did not meet the standards necessary in order to be covered by Medicare. However, as it turned out, CMS was unfamiliar with its own regulations.

One of the cases in question involved an 85-year old who weighed more than 350 pounds and who was, more or less, confined to a wheelchair. Currently, CMS regulations specify “homebound” patients as those who have a “normal inability to leave home,” while “leaving home must require a considerable and taxing effort.” According to the CMS, this wheelchair-bound patient did not meet these qualifications.

However, in 2008, when the care was given to this patient, “homebound” was defined by CMS to mean any patient who had a “condition due to an illness or injury that restricts their ability to leave the place of residence except with the aid of: supportive devices such as crutches, canes, wheelchairs, or walkers.”

Clearly, given the circumstances surrounding the wheelchair-bound patient, the care provided by Caring Hearts in 2008 met all the necessary standards in place at the time. However, CMS was so out of touch with its own regulations, it was not aware of the rule change that took place between 2008 and the present day.

“What happens if we reach the point where even these legislating agencies don’t know what their own ‘law’ is?” Judge Neil Gorsuch asked after the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of Caring Hearts.

The court held that CMS “seems unable to keep pace with its own frenetic lawmaking,” and that, “an agency decision that loses track of its own controlling regulations and applies the wrong rules in order to penalize private citizens can never stand.”

CMS’ inability to keep track of its own rules is not something unique to their agency alone. In fact, with over 175,000 pages of federal regulations in place as of 2014, it has become impossible for anyone to keep track of all the federal rules currently in place.

When the ever-growing bureaucracy of the federal government prevents businesses from being able to help their consumers, especially when the commodity in question is health care, there is a real problem with our regulatory system. Luckily for Caring Hearts, this story had a happy ending. But many other businesses are not so lucky.

Write for CFI