Study: Regulation costs California economy almost $500 billion
posted at 5:20 pm on September 25, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Conservatives and liberals often square off over the proper level of government regulation, but most people agree that some level of oversight is necessary to defend against fraud, waste, and abuse. But at what level does the regulation itself become waste and abuse, this time by bureaucrats rather than stakeholders in the markets? Two researchers at California State University Sacramento may not have the answer to that question, but certainly can argue that California has long since passed the threshold (emphases mine):
This study measures and reports the cost of regulation to small business in the State of California. It uses original analyses and a general equilibrium framework to identify and measure the cost of regulation as measured by the loss of economic output to the State’s gross product, after controlling for variables known to influence output. It also measures second order costs resulting from regulatory activity by studying the total impact – direct, indirect, and induced. The study finds that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product. The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State’s population. Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business. The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business.
Those conclusions are simply stunning, and it’s worth pointing out that the analysis comes from professors at a state-run school, not employees of a private think tank. California currently has 12.2% unemployment, and its economy has almost fallen off a cliff over the last two years. A reduction of even half of the regulatory burden on businesses in California could create almost 2 million jobs and kick-start their economy. Instead, California — like the rest of the US — is focused on increasing taxes and regulation, the opposite of what the Golden State needs.
It would be interesting to see similar analyses on the rest of the states. I suspect California will rank high among them, but perhaps not the highest on the basis of percentage-of-GDP. These are the kind of analyses we need to have an informed debate over the nature and reach of the regulatory requirement for a free people.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Amazing…. but not surprising.
dean_acheson on September 25, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Own
it.
Ca., own it.
artist on September 25, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Um, yeah.
Too bad the Left controls academia. I’m sure the studies are there, they’ve just been…misplaced.
misterpeasea on September 25, 2009 at 5:24 PM
And our wonderful leaders do absolutely nothing to encourage anyone from wanting to do business in CA. CA is a Welfare state thanks to the likes of Frankenstien, Boxer, and BuzzCut Bass.
BigMike252 on September 25, 2009 at 5:25 PM
This is just laughably stupid. But here comes Ed to get it posted at HotAir.
If all regulation were totally removed, would CA’s economy jump by $500 billion? Is that counting all the money lost to lawsuits regarding wrongful deaths by unsafe products and services, etc?
There’s a case to be made that overregulation is bad, and reasonable people would agree, but to posit that $500 billion is needlessly squandered just makes you look hyperbolic and therefore easily ignored.
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 5:25 PM
that doesn’t surprised me, actually. I used to work for Medicare in San Fran, doing quality of care complaints. We were stupid ineffective, but anyway, the sheer amount of bureaucracy to get a quality of care complaint registered with any state agency was unbelievable.
I still shudder to think of those poor Medicare members who were honestly complaining about poor to negligent care by health care providers trying to get anything big done.
Honestly, we should have advised them to call ________ at the state then ended every call with “good luck with that.”
mjk on September 25, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Yeh, but the weather’s fantastic!
*snort*
fogw on September 25, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Slightly OT: On the page finance.yahoo.com they list the top ten financial searches. Unemployment is number one. Using Larry Summers’ metrics, what does this say about the state of the economy?
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I heard an assemblyman on the radio yesterday talking about this study. Schwarzenegger didn’t want this to go public. They hid it for a couple of years. It took some prodding by this assemblyman and some business groups to get the governor to cough this up. Also, this study does not include any effects of AB32, the law signed by Schwarzenegger to save the world from CO2 emissions.
Mark1971 on September 25, 2009 at 5:27 PM
The regulations that burden California are quite often passed onto other states and manufacturers. Just a little lawn mower has to pass CA. emission regulations. The auto industry has to build extra emission components on the vehicles sold there.
fourdeucer on September 25, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Even the “second chancer” bums are skipping California for Florida.
Caper29 on September 25, 2009 at 5:28 PM
It is not a $500B or nothing question. Nothing in the article talked about $500B being needlessly squandered. Ed even states posits about reducing the regs in 50%.
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:29 PM
FIFY
Fatal on September 25, 2009 at 5:30 PM
they just added a ban on certain paints and aerosols that have high emissions
rob verdi on September 25, 2009 at 5:30 PM
…and right into those global warming induced hurricanes. Has there been a quieter season ever?
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Feinstein, Boxer, Karen Bass, Pelosi, Waxman, Waters, SF Mayor Newsome, LA Mayor Villaraigosa.
I don’t know anyone personally that likes any one of them. They represent themselves. That is the problem in California.
FireBlogger on September 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Artist:
We do own it, unfortunately, and so do our kids, and probably their kids as well.
Fogw:
And the weather ain’t so great either– way too hot right now.
BTW, 0 is speaking at the G20– I didn’t think he could get any worse, but watching him w/o his loyal Totus is truly painful.
LASue on September 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM
The ones that I know who are leaving or left already are Arizona bound. Idaho caught a couple but no one I know is heading to FL.
Too flat and humid.
FireBlogger on September 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Once again, a lib responds the the post he would have liked to have read instead of what was actually posted. There simply was no “posit that $500 billion is needlessly squandered”.
I chalk it up to a lack of critical thinking ability, or perhaps a
lack ofpublic education.Fatal on September 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Silly legislators, don’t they know that an aerosol ban will cost us 100 GAJILLION DOLLARS?!?!?!
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Ed never said that, did you even bother to read his opinion?
Laughably stupid indeed.
Bishop on September 25, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Intercepted internal Liberal Party Memo,
Note,need more regulations,oh and a tax hike is
needed asap!(Snark).
canopfor on September 25, 2009 at 5:35 PM
You should have highlighted this one, Ed:
Why? Because the unemployment rate in Cali is a little over 12% right now, so that’s damn near everyone accounted for.
commenter on September 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Look up Clark Foam for an example of how regs killed a very successful small business. At the time Clark made almost all of the blanks for surfboards and he had to close because he could not meet the ever changing regs in Ca.
RobD on September 25, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Capitalism requires some oversight (mostly in the form of law enforcement and punishing those who break the law) but TOO much law only creates hurdles to jump over and obstacles to navigate.
Needless laws should be trimmed from the system.
But to say that the 500 billion number if off you have to know how they came to that number (which, I admit, I’d be curious how they got to that point).
You could ask the people who made the study, or be simpler about it and ask all the businesses who left California why they left.
The answers usually boil down to one of two things: over taxation or over regulation. One breeds on the other (in order to regulate, you must enforce, and that costs money).
Chaz706 on September 25, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Read it and weep, folks. With Barry and his minions in charge, California is just a sneak preview of what’s in store for the rest of the country. Unless we stop them.
califcon on September 25, 2009 at 5:39 PM
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 5:25 PM
You’re the one who ‘laughably stupid’ e-pirate…You will see that Ed addresses the fact that some oversight is needed to keep down waste and abuse…why don’t you read the article…oh yeah, it’s probably difficult to get a computer up your a$$ where your head is…
Ltlgeneral64 on September 25, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Oh I’m sorry, he only said if we canceled half the “regulatory burden” we could gain back 2 million jobs.
That’s a totally reasonable opinion and not at all idiotic.
I retract my first comment.
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I was talking to a guy who bought an auto repair shop in my neighborhood. He told me about all the start up and monthly fees imposed by the state, city, and county. It’s horrendous. And a lot of them unnecessary.
Blake on September 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM
DId you every have to refit a collision repair shop because they only allow water-based paints on cars? Do you think that the equipment to do that is free?
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM
When environmentalists (like Waxman) brought California to its knees, their next target was the Federal Govt. I say resist everthing marketed to “save the planet”. Make sure no contribution of yours goes to the NRDC or WFF. Push back on green politicians and products whenever you can. Green is the new Red. Make it a shameful word.
Christian Conservative on September 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM
I like that Florida is very business friendly. The thing I always wondered is why Nevada has such high unemployment when it probably has the best business climate in the country. Virtually no taxes or regulations. Only S. Dakota does better, but no one wants to be there in December.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on September 25, 2009 at 5:42 PM
They regulate apt inspections in a number of cities. The costs are passed onto the tenant. They are supposed to check every 3 years, but they don’t. And if you don’t want them to inspect your apt because there are no problems and it is intrusive, they threaten you that they will get a warrant.
Blake on September 25, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Is this in CA? My family owns a collision repair business in IN\IL, but we talk to CA shop owners. Business environment sounds nasty over there.
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:43 PM
lol
jhffmn on September 25, 2009 at 5:43 PM
They never make less laws only more. How can the system NOT be eventually overwhelmed with regulation. It’s impossible.
Oh and hey, I’ve worked in and around health insurance for almost 20 years and I can tell you state/def regs are killing smaller insurers.
WitchDoctor on September 25, 2009 at 5:43 PM
if California has any votes that are needed for the passing of this communist health bill Obama, Axelrod and Rahm will bail them out, you count count on that cause thats what they do. SELL OUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
The printing presses are running full speed in preparation for the vote you can bet on that!
bluegrass on September 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM
No, Ed posts the results are stunning because common sense would dictate that suggesting a state is losing over a third of its GDP to “regulation” is looney tunes, and then Ed even goes further to point out “hey this didn’t even come from some propaganda pumping think tank, it came from some professors” because that would somehow lend these goofy numbers extra credibility.
There are two options: either Ed knows $500 billion is an insanely high total and posted it just for political points, or he is comically gullible and honestly believes it. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed the former.
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM
TimTebowSavesAmerica,
Most of the work here in Nevada is gaming related and there have been layoffs in that area but most of the layoffs have been in construction. We had a huge housing bubble that will take a long while to recover from.
RobD on September 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Grey Davis, the former Gov. who was ousted by an angry populace, was on TV this week crowing about Cali’s environmental achievements. He was applauding the fact that Obama’s team and the House used California’s legislation on CO2 as the basis for their own bills.
So when the economy craters and we’re all buying livestock to start our own subsistence farms, remember to thank California. The libs ran the wealthiest state in America to the verge of bankruptcy, and now America is following their model.
hawksruleva on September 25, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Liberalism really is a mental disorder. They left cannot possibly deny (though somehow they still do) that their fiscal policies simply do not work. What the heck are they holding on to?
Grafted on September 25, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Oh ya Harry says we are going to have tones of green jobs here soon. I’m not holding my breath.
RobD on September 25, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I go to Las Vegas whenever I need high-VOC paint.
unclesmrgol on September 25, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Sooooo what is the actual number, if it’s not the number published here? Can you point us to a source that claims some lower number?
hawksruleva on September 25, 2009 at 5:46 PM
If it were really a big environmental or health threat would they be waiting until Dec. 31, 2013 to implement it.
We both know it is all about control.
chemman on September 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Without some sort of divine intervention, or I’d settle for a nice congressional turnover in 2010, boys and girls… we’re all gonna be “Californians” soon.
TXUS on September 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Actually, e-pirate, the correct conclusion is either that you’re too stupid to comprehend the post, in which I never endorsed the idea that we could get rid of all regulation (and acknowledged that one has to balance the need for regulation against the cost), or you’re an intellectually dishonest jerk who uses strawman arguments to make himself feel good. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re an idiot.
Ed Morrissey on September 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Didn’t arnie sit on this report for a while and refuse to release it? Yeah, wouldn’t want to start fixing the problems in this state for real, now would we?
Blake on September 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Here’s the sad part:
You talking to a guy who calls fees unnecessary is basically as credible as Ed’s post.
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Ed is posting something interesting. How about you go do some research and find out how much this study was on this? Then you may talk, until then you have nothing to add from what I have seen.
I bet Californians would like to know where they money is going while doing this study!
upinak on September 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Golfclap for the leadership of CA.
jhffmn on September 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Just curious – will AB32 save Mars, Jupiter, and the rest of the solor system from the effects of climate change, too? Because they warmed up right along with us, and now are cooling off with us.
It’s almost like they shared an energy source.
hawksruleva on September 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM
See, even libs can understand nuggets of reason from time to time. In time you may even be able to follow a reasoned discussion.
Good on ya.
Bishop on September 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM
C. All of thee above.
upinak on September 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM
So you’re saying all fees ARE necessary? I think it’s time for me to point out the $100 e-pirate posting fee.
hawksruleva on September 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Dang! Ed’s bringing it.
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Banning fireplaces was another stupid regulation. If you sold your house, you had to brick it up. If you already had a fireplace, you had to pay 3,000 bucks to do something to it, and new homes could not have a fireplace.
Now, obviously, in Southern Calif., we don’t use fireplaces very often. And when we do when it is cold, there are off shore ocean breezes that keep the air clean.
A total waste of money.
Blake on September 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM
If e-pirate fits this example, he should run for the Democratic nomination for President.
hawksruleva on September 25, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Maybe I’m missing something, but this seems to make no sense. There’s 12% unemployment right now, which is 4.4 million who are jobless. Regulation accounts for 3.8 million lost jobs. So without regulation there would be less than 2% unemployment? Really?
tneloms on September 25, 2009 at 5:51 PM
You sound like a trial lawyer.
CPT. Charles on September 25, 2009 at 5:52 PM
e-pirate to defend the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation in 3…2…
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:53 PM
I weep for my state. :(
Mary in LA on September 25, 2009 at 5:53 PM
e-pirate -> brick wall + stupidity = imminent ban
Fatal on September 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM
It cost me $4,000 to get a building permit from the city to replace my garage (a utility structure). No way did it cost them $4.000 to process the permit, so I second the notion that a great portion of the fees charged by the various goverments is unnecessary. Add city to county, county to state, and you get the idea.
unclesmrgol on September 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Exit Question:
If California taxes itself out of existence, what’s to stop Nancy Pelosi from moving to your state?
jhffmn on September 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Not to mention practically bankrupting an entire valley to save a 3 inch fish.
fourdeucer on September 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Don’t forget cutting off water to the farmers…
… then wondering why a head of lettuce is $23.
Seven Percent Solution on September 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM
OT: Where is our Don’t buy ObamaCare…go to jail thread? That should be fun.
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Our vaunted state legislature would look at that information and sneer “Where’s your PEER REVIEW?” Of course (given past examples) if the peer review confirmed the original information, it would still be decried as BOGUS. The liberal intellectuals in the legislature know all.
We once had a thriving state with a part time legislature. The damage started occurring when they became a full time pain in the rear. There is now a movement afoot to submit an initiative to limit the legislature to meeting only 3 months each year.
GarandFan on September 25, 2009 at 5:57 PM
No, a-hole. I was talking to a guy who had already owned and run a similar business a few miles away and who sold it and bought an identical business in my neighborhood. He explained to me all the fees and what they were for. A lot of them were unnecessary.
So, butt-pirate, if and when you grow up and have the intelligence to be a small business owner, come back and debate honestly.
Your schtick is boring.
Blake on September 25, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Only a third of the State’s GDP? I’d have thought half. IMO they underestimate the deterrent effect of implied litigation threats.
Tom_Holsinger on September 25, 2009 at 5:57 PM
They actually ban fireplaces? Or was that a sarcastic remark?
upinak on September 25, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Actually, they seem to do something useful — making sure little kids in their jammies don’t go up in flames when mommy accidentally drops her burning cigarette ashes on the clothing…
Personally, I’d stop the cigarettes, but then I’d be starting a “flame war” here.
unclesmrgol on September 25, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Ruh ruh, I struck a chord with Ed and he has descended into the comments to deliver my comeuppance. Although the best he could do was call me an idiot, so I must be winning ;)
I agree that I overstated your case, and you didn’t say $500 billion was unnecessary. But you did say removing “half the regulatory burdern would save 2 million jobs” suggesting that we could wipe away $250 billion without negative consequence, so I am half correct. Beyond that, your suggestion of removing regulatory burden is completely undefined. What would that entail? Halving every industrial fine? De-staffing half of the regulatory agencies and then telling them “you know what, ignore half the violations you see?” It almost seems like you just just tilting at the phantom menace of “regulation” to make cheap political points without any real consideration of the outcomes of your suggestions!
Here’s what I want to know: how high would this total have had to been for you to just dismiss the study? A trillion? 5 trillion?
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 5:58 PM
I can easily see where an unfettered free market would put everyone to work. Without the extra expense and barriers to entry caused by regulation, lots more people would be starting businesses.
But remember too that the official unemployment stats don’t inlclude people who have given up the job search, or undocumented aliens (who also suck up jobs that others could take) and probably doesn’t account for out-migration by Californians, which has been going on for years as their regulations grow more and more severe.
hawksruleva on September 25, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Maybe it will be like a black hole and nothing will escape including Nancy.
PS: the link has me covered from racism charges.
WashJeff on September 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Instead of arguing about the number as though Ed picked it out of the air, you could just link to the paper. The link is right there.
tbrosz on September 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM
So, has e-pirate hijacked this thread and made it all about his retardedness and/or dishonesty?
Blake on September 25, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Oh wait…
Chaz706 on September 25, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Oh I see the ban hammer a coming, it’s coming round the bend!
upinak on September 25, 2009 at 6:00 PM
How do we sign this guy up for a HotAir front page account?? ;)
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 6:01 PM
e-pirate can’t even get his quotes right, this is just pitiful – like I said, arguing against what he WANTED to read instead of what was actually posted.
LOL
Fatal on September 25, 2009 at 6:01 PM
CA state gov’t is a money sucking monster. For example they have a Bureau of Home Furnishings. What?
http://www.bhfti.ca.gov/index.shtml
jbh45 on September 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM
I called “this study” laughably stupid.
Ed called me an idiot.
He’s a big boy and can take as well as he gives, so I will tip my hat for that much.
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM
He is correct. I left California before it went into effect.
chemman on September 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM
That’ll be another $100. Do your patriotic duty and pay the fee. Perhaps it’s time to look into how much you owe in uncollected e-pirate posting fees. There’s a new regulation pending that could complicate matters, you’ll have to see the department of idiot sufferance for a ruling on whether the e-pirate fee can be collected on posts containing no actual information. Feel free to challenge the ruling by driving to Sacramento and meeting with the arbitrary panel in Room 612. We may be on vacation when you visit, so you could have to make the trip twice.
Ahhh, the power of regulation!
hawksruleva on September 25, 2009 at 6:03 PM
21st Century Shakespeare
The first thing we do, let’s kill all
lawyersbureaucrats.CPT. Charles on September 25, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Not so much that anymore, Fourdeucer. There was a time when you would have been absolutely correct. But now basically a new car is now certified to meet CA standards, because the Feds have “upped their game”, so to speak. We all pay for it, it’s just now it’s a “California Emissions Certification Fee” or some such. The standards for used cars and “special construction vehicles”? They’re still goofy and labyrinthine beyond belief.
BillH on September 25, 2009 at 6:03 PM
You make an excellent point – California is a shining example to the rest of the country and if more states enact the same heinous regulations, taxes and fees that California does then they too can have the same prosperity. /SARC
You of course are making the ridiculous argument that the citizens of California are getting their ’500 Billion’ worth out of the regulations and taxes.
gwelf on September 25, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Buddy, if you’ve got to stake your claim on the rhetorical difference between “could” and “would” then it’s game over man.
e-pirate on September 25, 2009 at 6:04 PM
wow. I don’t even know what to say. Fireplaces aren’t something easy to make and are usually the first things built for a house.
typically sad as usual.
upinak on September 25, 2009 at 6:05 PM
SoCal Bans Wood Burning Fireplaces
Blake on September 25, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Yeah, I didn’t quite get my formula right. Try # 2
e-pirate -> brick wall + stupidity + intentionally misquoting to make a point (kinda untruthful, huh?) = imminent ban
Fatal on September 25, 2009 at 6:05 PM
The old Billy Crystal line from Frenando’s Hideway on Saturday Night Live comes to mind:
‘It’s better to LOOK good than to FEEL good.’
Look at all the social and environmental prostration “we” will offer forth because “we” think it is our obligation to correct “their” history of wrong doing.
Except that they “we” can do both! Look Good and Feel Good, nevermind that it was on surface only. “We” looked good and felt good about what “we” were doing until the Ponzi Scheme had run it’s course. Underneath “we” were rotting, and atrophying away. Now it all needs to be cut out. And it is going to hurt.
It’s more important that “we” subjugate ourselves to the environmental Gaia and the PC worshipers than to enforce common sense regulation, and let the market work. Seems that “we” had plundered the state for so long that “we” need to suffer to set things right. Because there’s no other way to obtain atonement for those sins.
Well, we’re suffering.
What happened to this state that we could go from the topped ranked schools, manufacturing, highway, and lifestyle statistics to almost the bottom?
Boo hoo – it was Prop 13!
No, it wasn’t.
Socialism and Unions.
Since “we” have all that big Hollywood Money and largess “we” can afford to penalize all of our citizens as if we all had those means.
Bulletin: There aren’t enough Producers, Music Moguls, Actors, Atheletes and Rock Stars to foot that bill.
So millions will suffer to make some self-important jackholes “feel” good and “look” good to their enlightned peers.
Wretched excess self-loathing excess drove most of this.
juanito on September 25, 2009 at 6:07 PM
there is still ntohing better then a nice hot wood fire in your home. That is just wrong!
upinak on September 25, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Gee, did anyone say ALL regulations should be removed? Why no, no they didn’t. Nice strawman you got there.
It’s really amazing that people in other states are even alive without all the wonderful regs of Mommy California.
And those states are now the benificiaries of California’s soft tyranny as businesses and individuals run for the exits. New York, Michigan and other big government states are no better off as people there are voting with their feet as well.
RadClown on September 25, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Most of the bureaucrats ARE lawyers.
juanito on September 25, 2009 at 6:08 PM
That’s not what makes a fee necessary or unnecessary. The fee for registering my car is not supposed to literally cover the cost of processing my registration!
The idea is that the government does a lot to ensure that I can drive (builds and maintains the roads, enforces safety laws, keeps track of car ownership for all sorts of reasons, etc.), so if I want to drive my car, I need to pay a fee to support what the government does.
In fact, fees can be seen by conservatives as a preferred alternative to taxes. Rather than taxing everyone to pay for a certain government function (for example, transportation), you put more of the burden on the people who actually benefit from that function.
This doesn’t mean that DMV fees, or your permit fee, or fees in general, aren’t too high. But it does mean that deciding whether a given fee is “necessary” requires more than a simply outsider’s analysis.
tneloms on September 25, 2009 at 6:09 PM
There is a *huge* rhetorical difference between “could” and “would”. The same rhetorical difference exists between “can” and “will”.
“Smoking cigarettes can give you cancer” — evidence suggests that this is true.
“Smoking cigarettes will give you cancer” — not even close to provably true.
See the difference?
Mary in LA on September 25, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »