About a month ago, Jon Sanders prepared a policy report for the John Locke Foundation recommending anti-regulatory state legislation. Compelling stats included a Beacon Hill Institute study that estimated North Carolina regulations to be $3.1 billion, shall we say directly, with multipliers bringing that number up to $25.5 billion. One can add to this the costs of federal regulations.
It is one thing to say “studies show” or “a preponderance of studies show.” Sanders, among other citations, includes this one:
In 2014 John Hood surveyed the past quarter-century’s worth of peer-reviewed economic literature (going back to 1990) on questions of public policy and economic growth. With respect to regulation’s effects, Hood identified 160 studies. Over two-thirds found higher levels of regulation associated with lower levels of economic performance. Only 3 percent associated higher levels of regulation with higher levels of economic growth.
Lefties still love regulation, arguing it protects people from air pollution, etc. Sanders does not have a problem if a legislature wants to be a little redundant about protecting individual liberties. He does, however, note the bulk of regulation has something to do with politics, special interests, blasting competition, misdiagnosed problems, improper prescriptions, and obsolete remedies.
I am not going to take the time this morning to figure out where the studies stopped including opportunity costs in their analyses. Suffice it to say, regulation hurts small businesses without legal departments more than it does cronies.
Regulatory agencies comprise a frightening, “Who gave you the right?” fourth branch of government. In this state alone, 99.9 percent of unelected agencies’ proposed new regulations take effect, whereas only about one in five proposed bills become law. Over the last fifteen years, on average, 2405 pages have been added annually to the North Carolina Register.
