Conflict of Interest? Paying for Regulatory Inspections

[Aimless]

More like the taxpayers forced it onto the government.

[Loki]

Actually most good CEOs have a decent understanding of the workings of their company. They just can't tell you which office to talk to about getting a purchase order for office supplies. And the scale is completely different - even the largest companies only produce tens of billions of dollars of goods a year.

Wal-Mart had $420 billion in revenue in 2011...

[wiggin]

Wal-Mart had $420 billion in revenue in 2011...

To this (and the earlier comment on GE): Corporate revenue is not a good comparator to GDP. Not even close. Something better would be measuring the 'added value' of Wal-mart, which would be closer (but not equal to) their operating income for the year. For Wal-Mart, that was about $25 billion; for GE, that's about $15 billion. Even Exxon only made about $52 billion in operating income.

Regardless, I just think the lesson of the politico post shouldn't be 'the federal government is too complex, look how we couldn't even get an answer to a simple question', but rather 'Obama made a mistake - possibly a stupid one'. The first point might be true, but the story doesn't illustrate it.

[Loki]

I didn't say it was. I was replying to your comment which referred to how much a company produces. I'm pretty sure revenue reflects production. You didn't say value added.

[wiggin]

I didn't say it was. I was replying to your comment which referred to how much a company produces. I'm pretty sure revenue reflects production. You didn't say value added.

Sorry, I thought it was implicit from my earlier statement. The level of complexity of the US government was in proportion to the size of the economy it is managing - $14 trillion GDP. I was comparing that number to the 'tens of billions' I estimated was what the largest companies have in equivalent 'production'. I don't think there's a national level number equivalent to corporate revenues.

[CitizenCain]

Sorry, I thought it was implicit from my earlier statement. The level of complexity of the US government was in proportion to the size of the economy it is managing - $14 trillion GDP. I was comparing that number to the 'tens of billions' I estimated was what the largest companies have in equivalent 'production'. I don't think there's a national level number equivalent to corporate revenues.

Part of that might be because, at least in theory, we aren't communist nations where the government runs the entire economy of the nation, so it's not exactly fair to say the US [federal] government is in charge of a $14 trillion dollar economy either. And again, there's nothing that's forcing the feds to involve themselves in every minute detail of dirt being blown off of farmland - they choose to, so they don't really get to use complexity and size as an excuse, given that they chose to expand their purview into that triviality.

[wiggin]

Triviality? Victims of the Dust Bowl might disagree. And whether or not the gov't is controlling the entire economy, it is managing it. It's not like fiscal or monetary policy only affects the ~$3 trillion the government spends every year.

[CitizenCain]

Sounds like people in the Dust Bowl states might be better served by having their state governments handle the issue, rather than a federal agency. And again, the government is managing what they manage by choice, and choosing to massively expand its responsibilities... which means they don't get to use size and complexity as an excuse for fucking things up. If it's too big and complex for them to handle, they can stop trying to impose their control on it, rather than acquiring new responsibilities while not being able to handle the ones they already have.

[Aimless]

Of course they get to use size and complexity as "excuses" for "fucking things up", so long as their involvement improves the situation on the whole. Taking a look at the brief account of the USDA's hand in making the US the fattest nation in human history, I'm inclined to think that you're at least better off having the USDA than you would be without it. Perhaps not you personally, I don't know, maybe you don't like food or something.

[wiggin]

Sounds like people in the Dust Bowl states might be better served by having their state governments handle the issue, rather than a federal agency. And again, the government is managing what they manage by choice, and choosing to massively expand its responsibilities... which means they don't get to use size and complexity as an excuse for fucking things up. If it's too big and complex for them to handle, they can stop trying to impose their control on it, rather than acquiring new responsibilities while not being able to handle the ones they already have.

Of course they had a choice, but it's reasonable for governments to try to price an externality into the market to allow for better price signals and fully represent the cost of various choices. After all, society as a whole - and by extension the government - is on the hook for externalities.

I'm not sure your argument on complexity makes any sense though. Something isn't necessarily bad just because it's complex, nor is the regulation in question necessarily 'fucked up' (rather, Obama is simply wrong about who to call). We have very serious and complex issues facing our very complex economy, and it's not surprising that we have serious and complex solutions for those issues. I embrace complexity - rarely is a simple solution actually the optimal one. Obviously things can become needlessly complex, and that's a significant concern. I don't dispute this. But I don't think we need to have an arbitrary metric of acceptable government complexity being if a single person has a handle on who to talk to for every particular problem you might have. Why should our government be simple enough for a single person to 'get' it all? Is there some virtue in simplicity that ignores the nuances of real life and our increasingly complex world?

[Aimless]

I can't think of many modern areas of important activity that can be fully known and understood by any one individual, no matter how expert. It's like you guys want to denounce science and medicine now or something. le sigh

[CitizenCain]

Of course they had a choice, but it's reasonable for governments to try to price an externality into the market to allow for better price signals and fully represent the cost of various choices. After all, society as a whole - and by extension the government - is on the hook for externalities.

Yes, well, clearly I'm talking about more than just EPA regulations on dirt blow-off here, aren't I? (And, more to the point, I think we can all agree that reasonable legislation is heavily outnumbered by the other type, at least in the US, and at least these days.)

I'm not sure your argument on complexity makes any sense though. Something isn't necessarily bad just because it's complex

No, it's not. But the issue is that our government can't handle what's on its plate now (for whatever reasons we could probably argue about until the end of time), not anything about the inherent properties of complexity. Given that the current complexity and size/scope of federal regulations is clearly too much for the government to handle, it's foolish and counter-productive (and oppressive and tyrannical, etc.) to take on an accelerating amount of additional rules and regs is just foolish and harmful. This is not an argument against complexity, this is an argument against taking on new challenges and responsibilities when you can't even handle your current load... which is what the government is doing, with renewed vigor under our current leader.

Furthermore, I'd say that the level of complexity in government today is inherently bad (I'd even go so far as to say evil and tyrannical) when a citizen can't even figure out whom to call in order to get information on compliance with the law. We're not talking about needing an expert opinion on the effects of particulate pollution from farmland, the fundamental question being asked here is "how do I follow this particular law," and no one can seem to even figure out who would answer that question - not this will stop anyone from being prosecuted under that law either, might I add. That's just wrong, and evil, and an indicator of our system being very badly broken on a fundamental level.

And again, to both you and Minxy, "which department does this query go to" is not a nitty-gritty detail that requires intimate understanding and expert knowledge. It's a very basic, very general query, and a very important one when you dig into its essence ("how do I not commit a crime" ), and that it couldn't and can't be adequately answered is a huge indictment - either of Obama, or the current system and/or Obama's aggressive expansion of this system, or whatever else. Personally, I find it incredibly disturbing how few people seem to take issue with it too - that anyone in our society could be arbitrarily charged with a crime they have knowledge of. Maybe you'll finally get the big deal when you're indicted for violation of the 1897 watershed protection act because you reoriented your downspouts... *<shrug>*

[Aimless]

I've re-read that story from Politico and I can't seem to figure out one thing.

“What I can tell you is our particular agency does not deal with regulations,” she tells me. “We deal with volunteers who voluntarily want to do things. I think the reason you got that response from the Cambridge office is because in regard to noise and dust regulation, we don’t have anything to do with that.”

She adds that the EPA would be more capable of answering questions regarding regulations.

So... did he call EPA or not???

[Aimless]

ps. this is relevant and of interest:

[CitizenCain]

ps. this is relevant and of interest:

Indeed. A very depressing, infuriating watch... because he makes sense, is almost certainly right, and yet, will have no impact on the legislative environment or the size and density of our obscenity-against-justice of a legal code.

"...and we wanted to create a legal system where no one could have bad values anymore. The problem is, we created a legal system that eliminated the right to have good values..."

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/ny...onsour.html?hp

This is what happens to bureaucrats who actually do their job.

[wiggin]

Yes, well, clearly I'm talking about more than just EPA regulations on dirt blow-off here, aren't I? (And, more to the point, I think we can all agree that reasonable legislation is heavily outnumbered by the other type, at least in the US, and at least these days.)

That may be true, but the fact of the matter is that complexity is not in itself something bad - even if it means the head of the government can't fully grasp every element of its workings. A citizen interested in getting an answer to a question has much better methods of doing it than asking the President for an offhand answer. This is not a debate over whether the government has wasteful complexity, it is whether the story quoted earlier in this thread actually proves anything of the sort.

No, it's not. But the issue is that our government can't handle what's on its plate now (for whatever reasons we could probably argue about until the end of time), not anything about the inherent properties of complexity. Given that the current complexity and size/scope of federal regulations is clearly too much for the government to handle, it's foolish and counter-productive (and oppressive and tyrannical, etc.) to take on an accelerating amount of additional rules and regs is just foolish and harmful. This is not an argument against complexity, this is an argument against taking on new challenges and responsibilities when you can't even handle your current load... which is what the government is doing, with renewed vigor under our current leader.

What part of the quoted story indicates to you that the government can't handle its current level of complexity? For one, at least one individual seems to have sent the caller to the right place. For another, I don't expect the FDA to know about Medicare Part D, despite that both programs deal with prescription drugs - so if I'm wrongly directed to the FDA by a clueless public official, it's not an indictment of the system, but just of the official's knowledge.

Furthermore, I'd say that the level of complexity in government today is inherently bad (I'd even go so far as to say evil and tyrannical) when a citizen can't even figure out whom to call in order to get information on compliance with the law. We're not talking about needing an expert opinion on the effects of particulate pollution from farmland, the fundamental question being asked here is "how do I follow this particular law," and no one can seem to even figure out who would answer that question - not this will stop anyone from being prosecuted under that law either, might I add. That's just wrong, and evil, and an indicator of our system being very badly broken on a fundamental level.

Please, this wasn't a citizen who was stumped about who to call, this was a citizen following bad advice from an elected official in a single-minded manner. I'm betting that in five minutes I could have a decent idea of who to talk to about this.

Actually, I just did it in about 2 minutes. For example, looking for water runoff regulations wrt agriculture, I found an EPA page here (pdf warning) which has links to some reasonably helpful sounding websites and a toll free number for the 'National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center', which sounds pretty damned promising. The website has some decent information about proper soil preparation techniques to minimize erosion and dust production. And I'm not a farmer and didn't have a clue about where to look until I opened up Google.

They were asking the wrong people, so they got nonsense answers. This is not an indictment of the system, just Obama's knowledge or memory of who make environmental regulations for agriculture. (I suspect that probably both the USDA and EPA do different environment-related issues with agriculture, but this definitely seems to be in the EPA's purview.)

edit: BTW, if you want to call the EPA's special line on how to deal with clean air act compliance (specifically asking about current regulations on particulate matter), by all means call (919-541-0800).

And again, to both you and Minxy, "which department does this query go to" is not a nitty-gritty detail that requires intimate understanding and expert knowledge. It's a very basic, very general query, and a very important one when you dig into its essence ("how do I not commit a crime" ), and that it couldn't and can't be adequately answered is a huge indictment - either of Obama, or the current system and/or Obama's aggressive expansion of this system, or whatever else. Personally, I find it incredibly disturbing how few people seem to take issue with it too - that anyone in our society could be arbitrarily charged with a crime they have knowledge of. Maybe you'll finally get the big deal when you're indicted for violation of the 1897 watershed protection act because you reoriented your downspouts... *<shrug>*

First of all, it kinda is a nitty gritty detail. He wasn't suggesting the questioner go to the DoD, but to one of the two likely organizations that make regulations that directly affect farmers (actually the Department of the Interior might also work). I agree Obama should have known better - and maybe he does if given a second to think about it - but it hardly proves our system is flawed.

Secondly, I find that ignorance is no excuse wrt breaking the law. Sorry.

[Lebanese Dragon]

That may be true, but the fact of the matter is that complexity is not in itself something bad - even if it means the head of the government can't fully grasp every element of its workings. A citizen interested in getting an answer to a question has much better methods of doing it than asking the President for an offhand answer. This is not a debate over whether the government has wasteful complexity, it is whether the story quoted earlier in this thread actually proves anything of the sort.

The only negative part is it shows Obama's delusions regarding the streamlined nature of the system, because he believed a phone call to the USDA would resolve the issue quickly and efficiently. Obviously our system needs to be improved, and it shows that perhaps this should be one of Obama's focuses, as a way to cut-costs, and improve our country.

[wiggin]

The only negative part is it shows Obama's delusions regarding the streamlined nature of the system, because he believed a phone call to the USDA would resolve the issue quickly and efficiently. Obviously our system needs to be improved, and it shows that perhaps this should be one of Obama's focuses, as a way to cut-costs, and improve our country.

Please, there wasn't an 'issue' to be resolved. The individual wanted information about whether new regulations would prove challenging and expensive to meet. If he had called the correct organization (which is ridiculously easy to find on Google), he could have gotten detailed information about current regulations and compliance, and probably could have at least been directed to a draft regulation for the future and had an opportunity to ask his elected official to change things. Seems reasonable enough.

I'm not debating that there's waste in the government. Let's just try to keep the snarky self-satisfied political stories from swaying our opinion when they don't actually prove anything.

[Lebanese Dragon]

This doesn't sway my opinion and if you note earlier I wrote:

Is this a negative reflection on Obama, or just the state at which our country is in. Showing still the lack of inter-communication.

It only makes me wonder how streamlined does Obama think the system is. I don't blame him for the state of the system, I don't find it odd or unreasonable for him to list the wrong place to start calling.

[CitizenCain]

Since we'll clearly never find common ground on the rest, snipped.

Secondly, I find that ignorance is no excuse wrt breaking the law. Sorry.

And you think this standard ought to still apply to a legal code that (on the federal level alone) contains so many statutes that the government no longer keeps count? (Reassuringly though, they're quite confident it contains over ten thousand individual statutes.) It's one thing to say that about a compact legal system based on ideas everyone's figured out before they hit puberty, it's a completely different matter to say that about an opaque code cobbled together with no rhyme nor reason that you couldn't read through in a lifetime.

And I'm sure your take on the matter would be quite different if you were facing two years in federal prison for picking a seashell off some beach in a tropical vacation spot, or one year for safely and securing product prototypes in a self-storage locker, or staring down a the barrels of a SWAT team's MP5s because you had the audacity to plant Orchids in your flower garden.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, my ass. The part that goes along with that is "Fair Notice." You can't use ignorance of the law as an excuse when the authorities take reasonable measures to inform everyone of the law. Now that we no longer even pay lip service to the practice of fair notice, we can't justly punish people for not memorizing a code far too long and dense to even read through once.