CPSIA redux

[unixronin]

By way of masgramondou:

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal noted a study by the Motorcycle Industry Council that concluded “90% of the youth fatalities and injuries on motorcycles occur when kids ride adult vehicles.”

[...]

The Journal quoted Ken Luttrell, a Democratic state house member from Oklahoma as noting the obvious: “With these new regulations, Washington has only succeeded in making biking much more dangerous for kids.”

[...]

Whenever I report on the law on air my e-mail box fills up with small business owners who cannot cope with the expensive (and in some instances impossible to comply with) mandates of the law.  Follow a blog like Overlawyered.com that chronicles the chaos, and the picture of an extraordinary blunder by Congress emerges.

Billions lost and who knows how many jobs disappeared is a scandal in good times and an unpardonable one in a severe recession, but the idea of a measure intended to increase child safety resulting quite directly in the death and injury of children really does set a new low mark for Congress.

Unfortunately, yet another sad comment on the failure of our government is that it no longer comes as any surprise when Congress once again throws the baby out with the bath-water.

Comments

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

You're right, that is a sad comment. It is also the bitter truth.

I think we need a Constitutional Amendment to make it illegal for Congress to enact any law only to seem like they are trying to do something, or only as a reaction to a problem (as opposed to actually solving the problem), or just to make themselves feel better about it. I'm sick to death of them circle-jerking each other to congratulate themselves for some new legislation that we can take one look at and KNOW it's either a waste of time, or trouble.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I think that's an almost impossible goal to legislate per se. I think a better approach would be to limit bills to addressing a single issue (no more vast omnibus bills), prohibit non-germane amendments or riders, prohibit voice-only "stealth" votes that give Congress plausible deniability on who actually voted for an unpopular bill, and put some kind of mechanism in place so that no bill may be voted on until, say, 80% or even 90% of Congress has read the entire bill from beginning to end.

(It might be just me, but if you think your constituents are going to be so mad at you for voting on a bill that you don't want them to know you voted for it, then you shouldn't be voting for it.)

The other thing that's needed is some kind of mechanism for the pubic at large to say "No, this bill is bullshit, you can't have it."

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

Here's an idea -

1. No "stealth" votes

2. No "omnibus" bills

3. When a bill is introduced, before it can be referred to committee, it must be put on a ballot for an up-or-down vote of the people. If it fails to get 60% of the REGISTERED VOTERS (not just 60% of those who chose to vote) to approve it, then it dies right there.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I've been fond of advocating making congressmen take tests on bills they vote for. With the penalty for failing to achieve a 75% average, or ever getting anything below a 50%, being removal from office, and oh, I dunno, maybe an IRS audit while we're at it.

I suspect the bills will get simpler all by themselves.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I like this idea............

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Here's an idea -

1. No "stealth" votes

2. No "omnibus" bills

See my next post ;)

[argonel.livejournal.com]

I think if you get eliminate the stealth vote, limit bills to a single issue, and prohibit non-germain riders that a lot of the remaning problem will solve itself.

Either that or the number of bills passed will proliferate hugely, so people can hide thier voting record in a batch of similar bills.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

To a certain extent, yes. I don't think those in themselves will fix the endemic corruption in Congress, or make Congress stay within the Constitutional limits of its powers and authority. They should help make those a little more publicly visible, though.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The thing that just kicks me in the teeth about this mess is that the federal government is throwing billions of dollars to shore up big businesses that are shedding jobs, and putting many small businesses out of business, where the real fuel for new jobs comes from. If the government would stop propping up failed businesses and stop overregulating new business, I think the economy would cure itself pretty quickly.

(I think it is pretty telling that our new DOJ anti-trust chief thinks Micro$oft is no longer an antitrust threat, and that Google needs to be reined in.)

If the government wants to help the working Americans, shouldn't they stop hindering the people that want to offer people jobs?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Quite honestly, right now, everything that the government is doing "to fix the problem" is in fact contributing to the problem.

"We're from the government, and we're here to help."