REFORMING THE REGULATORS

CALAMITY

FIG 1.A.1

SECTION

#

AMERICA'S REGULATORY AGENCIES - -

CHAOS EXPANDING TO CALAMITYTOPICS

1 WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ?

2 HOW DID PROBLEM DEVELOP? ROOT CAUSES?

3 HOW / WHEN DO WE BEST RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM ?

4 SUMMARY COMMENTS

5 REFERENCES

Sect

# 1

AMERICA'S REGULATORY AGENCIES - - CHAOS EXPANDING TO CALAMITY

1. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ?

1.A WHAT SHOULD BE THE GOAL OF OUR FEDERAL

REGULATIONSRegulatory Agencies have been much in the news recently. The IRS perhaps wins the prize for most arrogant and out of control. It has publicly admitted that it has used its authority for selective enforcement of some rules intended to weaken political groups that appeared aligned to the Tea Party, to Patriotic expression and others. Moreover, in late June, U.S. House hearings have produced testimony introducing large suspicions of cover-up in which the Agency has tried to destroy important data that it is required to protect.

Given these negative inclinations of arrogant, biased use

of power, it is fair to ask: Does America really need the

services of such an Agency? Moreover, as we shall see,

the IRS is unfortunately not the only Agency with such

disease. Thus it is also fair to ask of every specific

Agency: Is there any reason for this Agency to continue to

merit Taxpayer support ?

The answer is a small yes. There are some

legitimate services that can be provided to the

Citizens. The problem is: both Congress, the

Agencies and the Citizens have, for too many years,

allowed the Agencies to grow totally beyond the true

needs, which are simply stated in Figure 1.A.2. See

also Ref 1-a

Fig 1.A.2

From Senator Marco Rubio comes this assessment:

“For free enterprise to work, it needs a reasonable Regulatory system that 1. Ensures safety, 2. Protects consumers, and3. Achieves fair

competition. But what we have now is a thick shell of Federal Regulations that restrict private sector growth.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sect

# 1



1.A WHAT SHOULD BE THE GOAL OF OUR FEDERAL REGULATIONS (cont'd)

The 3 broad objectives listed in the prior figure sound like reasonable goals to me and likely to many others - -

but only with a few caveats:

• All Regulations must be tested prior to enactment to show that they both (i) satisfy the objectives, and (ii) are

also protected by separate stipulations to not be artificially “extended” to go even a single step beyond the

objectives.

• Oversight of the Agencies by both the Congress and a Citizen Panel must be an integral, legal part of the

process before any Agency Rule is approved to be levied on the Citizenry. A particular additional protection

must be incorporated that, under no circumstances, should any Agency Regulation be found, after review, to

infringe on any Citizen’s Constitutional rights.

• Every Regulation must pass a cost-benefits test, that shows that (i) the benefit dollar value to the Taxpayer

exceeds the cost dollars to be expended; and (ii) that maximum opportunity has been provided for private

enterprise to offer the service or protection, in a process that is structured always to remain fully open to

competition.

This sets the stage for the remainder of this present article which will deal with the issues raised in the prior

paragraphs of this section.

Sect# 1 AMERICA'S REGULATORY AGENCIES - - CHAOS EXPANDING TO CALAMITY


1.B WHAT ARE THE CORE ISSUES

Two Core issues are identified with regard to the Regulatory

Agencies and are discussed briefly in this section:I. Even when good, sound objectives are being proposed,

it is important to realize that costs to the Taxpayer are highly likely to be involved. Moreover, in cases where the costs are just given lip service, it is important to realize the significant impact of those costs to the Nation as a whole. So it is critical to establish awareness of the possible total impact of such costs at the outset.

II. What is to be the specific, ongoing process that ensures the ojectives and protections of the Regulatory system noted herein are monitored in a transparent, effective and continuous fashion?

A Regulation is a government rule that “seeks to change

behavior in order to produce desired outcomes,” and it does

this by requiring or forbidding certain actions. Every

administration since Jimmy Carter’s has undertaken efforts to reduce the Regulation burden. Success has been slim.

Figure 1.B.1 (Ref. 1-b) shows the ongoing package of active

Regulations, as measured by the number of pages published annually in the Code of Federal Regulations. It is seen that

the # of total active pages has consistently grown over the

same time frame that these Administrations

attempted to modify or eliminate nonfunctioning regulations. It appears that the issue does not

have the government priority as might be assumed

by the average Citizen.

Fig 1.B.1 GROWTH OF FEDERAL REGS



1.B WHAT ARE THE CORE ISSUES (cont'd)

You may ask: “so, who cares?” And the answer is: not as many Citizens who should, because most do not

understand the compelling adverse consequences to our Nation. Let’s look a little further.

Economists typically divide government economic activity into four broad classes: spending, taxation, deficits,

and monetary policy. There is, however, a fifth class of activity that may well have important effects on economic

activity but that nevertheless has received lesser attention: REGULATION.

The estimated adverse effect of increasing regulation on economic growth since 1949 has been significant;

here’s part of the conclusion, from Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute, Fig 1.B.2 ; also see Ref 1-c:

• Regulation’s overall effect on American growth rate is negative and substantial.

• Federal regulations added over the past fifty years have reduced real output growth by about two percentage

points on average [annually] over the period 1949-2005. That reduction in the growth rate has led to an

accumulated reduction in GDP of about $38.8 trillion as of the end of 2011. That is, GDP at the end of 2011

would have been $53.9 trillion instead of $15.1 trillion if regulation had remained at its 1949 level (see

Fig. 1.B.2, next chart).

• Ronald Bailey, in a Reason article titled “Federal Regulations Have Made You 75 Percent Poorer,” makes an

important calculation of how regulations affect us at the household level: As a result [of the increase in

federal regulations], the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would

have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of

$330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now.




Figure 1.B.1 shows the shortfall in

GDP attributed to regulatory

actions which results in the

associated loss in Household

income just mentioned.

Now that’s a statistic that

warrants some serious Citizen

attention. Moreover, the monies

that were chewed up in Regulation

burdening, could/would have

been used in part to grow America

in terms of domestic jobs and

American competitiveness.

Fig 1.B.1 GROWTH OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS




Within the 2 broad core concerns of section 1.B, are some further specific concerns worthy of note:

a. The Agencies have, over the years, become both bloated and arrogant. Some of this was on display in several

C-SPAN-covered House hearings in late June 2014. Of particular note were the interrogations by Chairmen

Darrell Issa (seen in Fig 1.B.2) with the IRS Commissioner and Dave Camp of their respective Government

Oversight and the Ways & Means Committees.

b. Using the AGENCIES to serve the political ends of one Party, rather than a neutral provision that reflects no

political bias. (cont'd next page)

Fig 1.B.2

House

Committee

Chairman

Darrell Issa

confronts

IRS

Commiss-

ioner John

Koskinen

Sect#

1




c. Provisions with the impact of infringing upon Citizen Constitutional Rights

d. Stifling or failure to allow utilization of free Market options to accomplish the desired

ends

e. Using the legal tactic of “Sue & Settle” for private organizations to unjustly tilt

Regulations to their own benefit. (More on this tactic, later)

These are mentioned here as a prelude to later sections, which can then be read with

these more specific concerns in mind.

Figure 1.B.3, next page, also is presented here as an example of some Regulatory

assaults, which are selected only from the many options of the single year 2013

( never mind going back to preceding years). The scope of impact on our daily lives is

staggering: health and home care; home mortgage; our diet; the air we breath; pay

scales of many of ourselves and friends; our postal service; our small businesses.

And that's just from a very small sampling.

FIG 1.B.3

SECTION

#






4 SUMMARY COMMENTS

5 REFERENCES

Sect #2 AMERICA'S REGULATORY AGENCIES - - CHAOS EXPANDING TO CALAMITY


2.A SOME HISTORY OF FAILURES - - ROOT CAUSES

Regulatory reform is hardly a new topic. Every President from Richard Nixon on has confronted some unease (or stronger) in his survey of things to improve our governance. Clearly with the very recent concerns in 2014 over bureaucratic intrusions into Citizen’s lives, e.g., the IRS, the problem cannot be called solved. In fact, some would say the disease is now at its most virulent. Ref 2.a (1997) has a very good review of the history of this subject since 1971 and the following assessment is an attempt to summarize some of the key points made in that reference.

In this section we will summarize, in a 4 chart table, (Figure 2.A.2) , the actions taken by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G. H.W. Bush and Clinton as well as the success or lack of that each had. This will serve as a basis for then urging a new approach to Regulatory reform, that uses good tools and has sufficient underpinnings so to support the very extensive makeover that will put an end to the wasted fundings that have not yet yielded an

effective solution. Figure 2.A.1 above, precedes the 4

chart table with some common acronyms that will

facilitate the coming discussion.

FIG 2.A.1

FIG 2.A.2-a

FIG 2.A.2-b

FIG 2.A.2-c

FIG 2.A.2-d

SECT# 2 AMERICA'S REGULATORY AGENCIES - - CHAOS EXPANDING TO CALAMITY


2.B SOME ISOLATED BUT

NOTABLE REGULATORY

ASPECTS

A digest of the last table with

its history, by Presidential

term, of dealing with

regulatory impacts, shows

some tools that seemed to

work and other

implementation techniques

that actually undercut an

improved outcome.

These various good steps and

bad steps are summarized in

Figure 2. B.1 , in the adjacent

box. Again, this will serve

later in this note to help

formulate a plan of regulatory

reform that both profits from

past positive actions while

avoiding fallback due to

omissions and regulatory mis-

steps.

FIG

2.B.1



2.B SOME ISOLATED

BUT NOTABLE

REGULATORY

ASPECTS

Figure 1.B.3

illustrated how

uniquely personal

some of the regulation

subjects can be. The

adjacent Fig 2.B.2, in

2 parts, shows a more

"official" scope and

includes the 50 "Title"

categories accounted

for in the Code of

Federal Regulations.

Again the scope is

shocking.

FIG 2.B.2



2.B SOME

ISOLATED

BUT

NOTABLE

REGULATORY

ASPECTS

Figure 2.B.2

50 categories

of REGS,

continued)

50 CATEGORIES OF REGS (continued)FIG 2.B.2(cont'd)



2.B SOME

ISOLATED BUT

NOTABLE

REGULATORY

ASPECTS

It has been noted

in section 1, that

one of the key

impacts of over-

regulation is the

impact to our

economy and

competitiveness.

Figures 2.B.3 &

2.B.4. Illustrate

this important

facet in more

detail.

This figure illustrates that correlated with the growth of REGS, is the growth of the regulators themselves - - a not surprising correlation.

From 50,000 personnel 50 years ago, in 2013 the count has risen to by nearly a factor of 6. This large Regulatory burden has an impact on monies available for investment that would otherwise help grow America.

This figure illustrates that as American investment is curtailed - - our investment in our Nation now ranks us poorly among our competitor Nations - - and the result is that our National growth is now a laggard.

FIG 2.B.3

FIG 2.B.4

SECT #2 AMERICA'S REGULATORY AGENCIES - - CHAOS EXPANDING TO CALAMITY


2.C FDA REGULATION EXAMPLE PROVIDES A GOOD LESSON

Ref. 2-b (L. Grossman), provides a case study of the FDA and its dealings with the “Patient Package Insert” (i.e., informative data provided in medical and vitamin packages). The study offers very fine insight into some of the good and bad of the Federal regulatory process. Now, some will question “is there ANYTHING “good’ about Federal regulation? My own inclination is well, yes, some should be kept - - but probably not too much. But I try to retain an open mind, and I think the following discussion is reasonably well balanced and thoughtful. Please have a look, form your own thoughts; we'll draw conclusions shortly.

Let’s start by thinking of a mythical Jane and Jason (following Ref 2-b) , two Citizen consumers living in different decades of FDA rules and attitudes.




First, consider Jane in 1966. When shopping for food, she has relatively few choices within each product

category; nearly half of the nation’s food products—including staples such as milk, cheese, bread, and

jam—are subject to FDA-imposed recipe-style standards of identity that allow little variation. Food labels

contain barely any useful information. There is no “Nutrition Facts” panel. The labeling of standardized

foods does not even state the ingredients. Nutrient content descriptors are rare; indeed, FDA prohibits any

reference whatsoever to cholesterol. Claims regarding foods’ usefulness in preventing disease are also

virtually absent from labels; FDA considers any such statements to render the product an unapproved, and

thus illegal, drug. Jane’s food choices are limited as “fortified foods” meet an uphill resistance at the FDA,

which regards such fortification with vitamin and mineral supplements as “quackery”. So such supplement

matters are kept within the province of government bureaucrats and scientific experts. As a result, Jane

remains largely uninformed on the subject particularly as she goes to the food/drug markets.

Now consider Jason, in year 2013. When he goes to the supermarket, Jason chooses from among a vast

array of traditional foods, food variants, and variants of variants. Many of these products have been

formulated specifically for consumers with particular health concerns. Furthermore, the labeling on food

packages imparts abundant health-related information to Jason, even some explicit disease prevention

claims. He also can peruse the food market's pharmacy section with many remedies that used to be

available only by prescription. Importantly, Jason is more informed on his vitamins, supplements and

medicines when he visits his doctor, and can ask more intelligent questions about treatments offered.




So what explains the difference in the food/medicine worlds of Jane and Jason?

a) Jane’s FDA viewed the consumer as passive, trusting and ignorant. Thus that environment (both

supplies and information) was tightly controlled by the bureaucracy.

b) Jason, on the other hand, in today's FDA environment, is more free to make choices from among a

wide variety of products and informed by a significant amount of information. In other words, there

is more acknowledgement of Citizen intelligence and the ability to arrive at the best choice for

his/her circumstances.

How was this change effected? Well, as is typical in America, there were Groups who supported the

“wisdom” of the status quo and there were others, often Citizen groups, who believed in their right to

choice, accompanied by adequate information for them to make such choices. As is also typical, there is

some truth to both sides - - safety cautions and Consumer choice are both important. The challenge is to

integrate these truths while excluding the infringement of Citizen rights, based on an Elitist “don’t worry,

WE know what is best for you !” I say: how about this for a rational compromise:

• The government Agencies together with private enterprise will both be free to develop and offer the

best currently-known information to Consumers so the latter can make intelligent choices, from a

broad array of offerings, by themselves. A partial formula is:

Informed Consumer Consent + Consumer Choice = Freedom + Pursuit of Happiness.A more complete formula is given in Fig 2.D.2.




Generally, this for Patient Package Inserts has been pursued in other applications. And “INFORMED

CONSENT” CHOICE by Consumers is a rather good principle to be assessed in a broad array of regulatory

actions and Agencies. Achievement of the change for the PPI was due to several important factors

including the following:

• publication of a “Patient’s Bill of Rights” by the American Hospital Association in 1972, at the urging and

based upon a draft by the National Welfare Rights Organization.

• Support of the information flowdown, by such private enterprise efforts as the handbooks: The Pill

Book, subtitled The Illustrated Guide to the Most Prescribed Drugs in the United States, Bantam 1979;

and, The Physicians Desk Reference, containing the full physician’s package insert for every approved

drug; and many others. With todays world of knowledge on the internet, the ready available information

to Consumers is virtually unlimited.

• A dramatic shift occurred in 1969, at a meeting of experts called the White House Conference on Food,

Nutrition, and Health. In a section of the conference report titled “The Provision of Food as it Affects

the Consumer: Guidelines for Federal Action,” the authors rejected FDA’s restrictive approach to food

regulation and issued a clarion call for consumer choice and information. They advocated an overhaul of

FDA food standards policy so as to “provide maximum flexibility and incentive for the marketing of new

variations and new foods to the public” and “wider consumer choice of foods.”




In Pearson v. Shalala (1999), the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,

applying the "Central Hudson" analysis

applicable to commercial free speech

cases, embraced a vision of the

consumer as an intelligent manager of

his or her own health who need not be

shielded from accurate information. For

example, the Court rejected the

government’s assertion that any health

claim that did not meet the NLEA’s

statutory standard of “significant

scientific agreement” is inherently

misleading and thus, under Central

Hudson, ineligible for any First

Amendment protection at all.

The Court mocked the government’s

argument that such claims:

“are inherently misleading because they have such an

awesome impact on consumers as to make it virtually

impossible for them to exercise any judgment at the point of

sale. It would be as if the consumers were asked to buy

something while hypnotized, and therefore they are bound to

be misled. We think this contention is almost frivolous.”

The Central-Hudson Case




In 1974 testimony supporting Congressional intervention, David King, the legislative counsel for the

National Nutritional Foods Association, a health food industry trade group, voiced a regulatory philosophy

that seemed to reflect the views of a broad swath of Americans. Attacking the provision of the FDA rule

declaring supplements with more than 150% RDA potency to be drugs, King opined:

• The American concept is that consumers must not only be free to choose, but free to have that choice uninfluenced by government interference…. This is particularly true where the government’s evidence in support of its value judgment is sharply contested by a number of experts of impeccable reputation….

• As long as he is not dealing with dangerous or untruthfully labeled food, then risk-taking [sic] should be for each man to decide for himself….

• What purpose is there in discouraging [a hypothetical arthritis] sufferer from pursuing his quest for better health? He is a free man. He is not stupid. … It seems to me that this will be a better country if people are encouraged, rather than discouraged, from interesting themselves in various approaches to health through better nutrition. The next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partially struck down FDA’s vitamin and mineral rule.




So, in this particular FDA case regarding the “Patient Package Insert” , it seems that one Regulatory

Agency’s highly parochial views were moderated over time as the efforts of Citizen groups, Private

Enterprise and the Judicial system brought forth more opinions and evidence that a better Regulatory

environment for Consumers was desired and could be implemented. And so it was. Time to extract a few

broad lessons from this successful story:

• Citizen choice, based on informed consent, is a powerful element in maintaining

America as a prosperous, thriving nation of free People.

• The Congress has an important role to play in restraining the tendency of Agency

leaders to become czar-like in their belief in what they have conceived for “better

governance”.

• Citizen groups and Private Enterprise have important insights to contribute and the

regulatory process must ensure that these views are heard and incorporated.

• The Federal court system can be an ally to the People, but it may take initiative on the

Citizens’ part to assure that issues are brought forth so that Justice may be delivered.



2.D SUMMARIZING SOME ROOT CAUSES

We have now looked now at several aspects of the regulatory issue, specifically:

(i) the very high cost impact of the current system; (ii) several legitimate objectives for government regulation; (iii) some very recent (2013) regulatory actions with highly undesirable consequences; (iv) three decades of largely unsuccessful Presidential actions to bring Regulation under better control; (v) several administrative tools used with some modest success; (vi) the spectrum of 50 categories of Federal Regulations; and, (vii) one specific example of FDA regulatory history in medical and nutritional labeling of foods and pharmaceuticals.

Figure 2.D.1, next page, summarizes what appear to be the true root causes of the REGULATORY

DILEMMA!

It is clear the issue is complex, resistant to fixes, and importantly, an albatross around the neck of the

American economy and our future global competitiveness. So - - what to do? Too big to tackle? No,

rather its too big to ignore ! So. we tackle that in section 3. of this article.

But here's a preview that hopefully entices to you read further. Synthesizing from some of the American

history and experience previously discussed in this note, we've developed a conceptual formula that

depicts some of the key elements of an approach to addressing the Regulatory issue. Such a formula is

given two pages hence as Fig . 2.D.2 and will be discussed further after covering a few more points.

FIG 2.D.1

FIG 2.D.2

SECTION

#






4 SUMMARY COMMENTS

5 REFERENCES


3. HOW / WHEN DO WE BEST RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM ?

3.A ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES

The solution path to an improved regulatory environment can be summarized briefly as this: (i) address the root causes of our chaotic Regulatory system as identified throughout this article (ii) focus on two solution elements that have to date been largely missing, and (iii) propose a more stable insertion technique so the change is a REAL CHANGE that will live on for many generations.

The two missing solution elements are these:1. Formally enable the Citizens to have a stronger role in government influence, as generally

promoted by the Constitution, but would now be formally stipulated by it.2. Assure the Citizens' role becomes part of our RULE OF LAW, not just a transitional WHIM of an

occasional Leader who tries to do the right thing, but leaves a legacy that is readily changed by the person who later comes after him. That is, make it a part of our Constitution through the Amendment process.

To get started, let's now examine Figure 3.A.1, which summarizes the root causes identified in earlier discussions and relate those problem areas to the most significant of the Solution Elements that have also been described. Column 4 of the figure lists and numbers the 8 general Solution Elements that have been identified. Placed against each of the 6 Root causes are the appropriate Solution Elements that are proposed as permanent provisions that will carve away some of the extra regulatory structure that is either obsolete or ill conceived. As the Solution Elements are somewhat general, several of them support and fortify each other as , in turn, they are applied to the Root Cause issues.

FIG 3.A.1



3.A ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES

As an example, take the first listed Root Cause: Regulations that are stretched by one or more Regulatory Agencies, beyond the bounds of either (i) the original Congressional Legislation that authorized the Regulatory provision, or worse, (ii) beyond the bounds of the Constitution itself. Well, there is something fundamentally amiss here. Another Agency Rule or even Congressional statute is likely, as in the past, to be cast aside later, in the belief of some who think the new change is best for the People. But that it not how America is supposed to work. The RULE OF LAW is a more permanent STRUCTURE than the Whim of a new officeholder.

But if the Solution Elements are integrated into a new Constitutional Amendment (the true way to correct our RULE OF LAW when it is found wanting) then its durability will be ensured until enough Citizens decide it is time for replacement. The related Constitutional Amendments noted earlier will be discussed shortly.

In the case at hand (the 1st Root Cause: Rulemaking Over-reach) is addressed by: 1. assuring that the Regulation satisfies the fundamental criteria for any Regulation; 2. testing the new proposed Regulation for Constitutionality and alignment with the Congressional authorization; 4. making sure the Regulation has an element of bipartisanship support, so it is less susceptible to regime change; 6. and 7. making sure that several designated groups not only review the Proposed Regulation, but actually attest, in writing, that such a review has been made and that the proposal passes some stringent tests as certified in the "Attestation Sheet" that must be signed well in advance of any initiation of the regulation, so all Citizens can be aware of its contents; 7. The Reader can review Each of the remaining Root Cause vs. Solution pairings.



3.B STRENGTHENING THE CITIZEN'S ROLE IN GOVERNANCE

As was noted earlier, we will now correlate each of the Solution Elements to 1 of 9 previously documented "SPRING" Amendments. A caveat with the earlier SPRING publication was that, although the Amendments were believed to be fairly robust, in that they have been tested against a number of contemporary problems, they would undoubtedly be capable of further optimization as some future problems were explored. And indeed some further optimization could undoubtedly be applied here. But this is not deemed necessary at this stage and all Reader suggestions are cordially welcomed.

Figure 3.B.1 is an alignment of Solution Elements provided earlier to the "Spring" Amendments given in Ref 3-b-1. It is noted that for each Solution Element now offered for Regulatory reform, a number of the Spring Amendments are applicable, again adding confidence to the latter's overall robustness. We will review just 2 of the Solution Element alignments here, leaving the rest for the interested Reader to pursue, if so inclined.

Example #1, Fig 3.B.2, SPRING Amendment #2 supports Solution Element #2, dealing with testing the Constitutionality and other aspects of the Regulatory reform process, prior to permitting publication of any Regulatory Rule. Additionally, the Amendment and the Solution Element envision a "sunset" clause which requires an active review of any Regulatory Rule after a period of years. If the Review does not yield an updated approval, the Rule becomes null and void (i.e., sunsetted) automatically. Thus the older, no longer applicable Rules are taken off the books and junked, just as your household garbage is periodically reviewed before hauling away.

FIG 3.B.1

FIG

3.B.2

SECT # 3

FIG

3.B.3

Part #1 of 2FIG 3.B.4

Part #2 of 2FIG 3.B.4 (cont'd)



3.C THE CONSTITUTION IS OUR RULE OF LAW (AND THE PEOPLE CAN AMEND IT WHEN THEY DEEM NECESSARY)

To address the problem of Regulatory chaos, several Root Cause issues and 8 Solution

Elements have been discussed previously in this article. The overall Problem was noted to

be within a category of issues analyzed by Newt Gingrich as part of a collection of American

ills stemming from "Broken Governance Processes" , see Figure 3.C.1 . In accord with

Newt's observation that addressing these process defects will require "Real Change!", the

Solution Elements proposed here are included in a broad array of fundamental reforms to

add stability to America by addressing such process defects. These have previously been

derived and published in Ref 3-a, in a collection of proposed Constitutional Amendments

and been given the title of "SPRING" Amendments. SPRING has the dual connotation of (i) a

new American Spring, and (ii) as an acronym for:

Stipulate the Peoples' Rights IN Governance.

A little overview of the concept is given in Figure 3.C.2 . Again, further discussion can be found in Ref 3-a. If you agree with the Regulatory reform approach advocated here and/or the SPRING concept, please pass this note along to friends you think might be interested. Thank you.

Fig 3-C-1

Fig 3-C-2

SECTION

#






4 SUMMARY COMMENTS

5 REFERENCES


4. SUMMARY COMMENTS

The Regulatory Agencies have been much in the news in recent months: (i) the IRS in using its powers to delay

efforts by Conservative groups to avail themselves of tax advantages for certain civic-issues-oriented Groups;

(ii) the Veterans Administration for using bookkeeping irregularities to show far better servicing of Veteran's

needs than was truly the case; and many others. Together we see a display of arrogance and abuse of Citizens

which is unworthy of a great nation. So should such Agencies simply be put out of business by the Citizens?

Well, No. We need to keep in mind that there are valid objectives and tasks that can be performed; e.g., tasks

that: ensure Citizen Safety; Protect Consumers and assure that the Private Sector remains competitive and

provides taxpayers with many cost-effective choices. But these must be transparently and cost-effectively

implemented. However, studies show, to the contrary, that Regulations cost Citizens a truly staggering amount

to the great disbenefit of American growth and competitiveness.

Unfortunately multiple Presidents from the 1960's to present, have tried to rein in such regulatory excess, but

with little success. Thus today, the Citizens and Businesses confront an armada of Regulatory Agents, 300,000

or so, compared to about 50,000 in 1960. Moreover, the U.S.A. no longer ranks among the highest in economic

growth.

In this note, we've analyzed a number of contributory problems and distilled 8 primary Solution Elements, which

carefully integrated, could put America on a much better path. As Newt Gingrich wisely observed, many of the

factors that hold us back, derive from "broken processes" in our Governance. And the fixes for these must be

robust and stable. That is the nature of the remedy proposed here, in the form of a set of Constitutional


4. SUMMARY THOUGHTS

Amendments that will help the Citizen gain back some traction in assuring Government oversight that avoids

unwanted, costly "mission creep" and impact on Citizen freedoms. Some of the Process improvements

proposed, include:

• Reducing the mountain of regulatory Rules by requiring Congress to retain accountability for every

regulatory Rule (i.e. "Law" that impacts Citizen costs or the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness). This

would require a reauthorization of all existing rules and any new Rule introduced in the future. Without such

authorization, any given Rule becomes null and void. "A lot of work" you say. Yes, but in its absence, the

People and Businesses are paying a steep price in compliance to about 175, 000 pages of Rules that no one

can (or should have to) truly comprehend.

• All such Rule review would be mandated to include help by various designated public bodies and specially-

chartered Citizen and Business Panels. This would include a specific Citizens' Oversight Panel (C.O.P.) with a

formally structured Constitutional role to support the Citizens' interests. All such Review Panels would be

required to submit a signed "Attestation Statement" that affirms the specific alignment of every Rule to both

our Constitution and the intent of the original Congressional authorizations granted the Regulation agency for

the Rule in question. Reviews must be completed 6 weeks in advance of any Rule promulgation.

• Accomplishing a cost-benefit analysis for every Rule that relates the intended cost savings to its benefits over

a designated period of time , e.g., one decade. An example Attestation Statement has been provided herein.

Moreover, the Attestation would assure that the Reviewer finds the Rule in alignment with one of the 3

general valid objectives and tasks noted in the 1st paragraph of this section 4.

• Assurance that the Review Panels instill in every Rule a provision for Informed consent of the Citizens


4. SUMMARY THOUGHTS

and at least 3 choices for purchasing any goods or services, required by the Rule, from the private sector as an

alternative to solely an option from the government.

The Solution/Amendment Set enables a process reform that our Nation sorely needs, and the rudiments of such

an approach are suggested herein. Fellow Citizens: your input and effort are also needed and we hope you will

help us all put our shoulders together and re-energize the wheel of progress that our Founders intended, but has

faltered in recent times.

America, We've dug ourselves

out of worse problems than

this!

SECT # REFERENCES

In this article, I've relied on many fine published works and wish specifically to acknowledge significant use of the articles of Refs: 2-a and 2-b, which provided an extensive thread of information directly related to the subject matter treated here. . . . Mark Sussman

References:

1-a

"Fact Sheet: Sparking Dynamic Growth in 21st Century America", Senator Marco Rubio, Mar 10, 2014Press Release, http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/3/fact-sheet-sparking-dynamic-growth-in-21st-century-america

1-b "Why We Need Regulatory Reform in Two Charts", Patrick McLaughlin, Richard Williams, May 27, 2014, MERCATUS CENTER AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY

1-c "Federal Regulations Have Lowered Real GDP Growth by 2% per Year Since 1949 and Made America 72% Poorer", Mark J. Perry, June 26, 2013, American Enterprise Institute

2-a "Regulatory Process Reform From Ford to Clinton", Murray Weidenbaum, 1997, CATO Institute, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1991/1/reg20n1a.html

2-b"FDA and the Rise of the Empowered Consumer", Lewis A, Grossman, August 2013, Working Paper RR#8, RETHINKING REGULATION WORKING PAPER SERIES, THE KENAN INSTITUTE FOR ETHICS at Duke University

3-a "Our Ivory Tower, But Ever-Expanding Government", Mark Sussman, Nov 17, 2013, http://www.slideshare.net/MarkS181/specl-mbs-ppt-supporting-blog-issues-of-spring-amndmt

http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/3/fact-sheet-sparking-dynamic-growth-in-21st-century-america

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1991/1/reg20n1a.html

http://www.slideshare.net/MarkS181/specl-mbs-ppt-supporting-blog-issues-of-spring-amndmt

News & Politics

REFORMING THE REGULATORS