Good government starts with informed voters! Know your Candidate!
Federal Regulations
MAKING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE means . . . limiting government regulation to activities that really need to be regulated . . . balancing the need for regulation with the social and financial cost of the regulation . . . making regulatory agencies answerable to the people . . . maintaining free markets and freedom of opportunities to enter the markets.
POSITION SUMMARY:
Government should not mandate any activity, or any particular solution, to any national problem. DISCUSSION:
I believe that these positions are both irrational and impractical. Unless a business's misconduct makes national headlines--nothing will happen. And businesses are too good at hiding their misconduct to expect individuals to know what they are doing wrong. Only government has the ability to investigate and punish business practices that injure all of us. But there are limits to what should and should not be regulated. All regulations have cost consequences. The Proper Role of Federal Regulations: I am a believer in a free-market economy. I believe that business should be mostly free of government regulation, but I do not believe that it should be wholly free of regulation. Regulation should be limited to conduct that affects the physical or financial health or safety of the people—individually or collectively—and prevents the exploitation of those who lack power by those who have power. HOWEVER, mere compliance with minimum applicable provisions of the law or federal regulations should not qualify as a defense in a legal action.
Congress’s Role in Federal Regulations: Congress does not regulate; Congress authorizes the agencies of the Executive Branch (and independent agencies and commissions) to regulate. Congress gets the “credit” for acting on issues that (some of) the people want acted on, but doesn’t have to consider the full consequences of the often open-ended authority it grants to the agencies that enact regulations. Regulatory Enforcement: If a statute, or regulation, is worth having, it should be enforced. However, the decision to enforce, or not enforce, a regulation should not be based on "politics." Regulatory and Licensing Reviews: We must establish a system to reduce the time required for licensing and determining compliance with applicable regulations. Extra-Regulatory Enforcement: Today, many of our regulations are intended to inhibit business practices that have the potential to injure innocent investors. Even practices that are technically legal have the potential to cause injury. The average small investor suffers from these fraudulent practices because they affect the value of their retirement plans and mutual funds. But there are ways of imposing discipline on business without dramatically expanding government regulation.
_____________________________
Government should prohibit activities that are clearly harmful—but leave business free to innovate and find its own best solutions.
Congress needs to assert more control over Government regulation. Congress needs to impose greater limits on the power of Executive Branch agencies to “legislate through regulation.”
NO federal regulation should be enacted unless the measurable benefits out weigh the cost (whether the cost is pubic or private.)
Government should continue to protect and preserve the opportunities available to small businesses by enforcing anti-trust laws.
No one likes to be regulated—especially not by government. But anyone who opposes all regulation is either a fool or a hypocrite.
No one would suggest that government should not prohibit criminal conduct. But criminal statures regulate conduct just as much as environmental statutes. Even those who oppose "regulation" in general agree that criminal statutes are necessary. So the question isn't a question of whether government should or should not have regulations. The issue is "what should be regulated" and "How much regulation is necessary."
Some people continue to believe that public opinion and consumer action is enough to make individuals and business act in a socially responsible manner.
Others suggest that government regulations are unnecessary because individuals alone are responsible for investigating the people and companies they do business with.
I also believe that it is in the national interest to limit the power corporations acquire by dominating industries. The fiscal drain on the national treasury resulting from the financial crisis of 2008-09 – all of which resulted from the proposition that some corporations are “too big to fail” – is, alone, enough to justify limitations on the size and power of individual companies.
Equally important is the fact that industry dominance by a few companies impairs competition and the growth of small businesses. Therefore, as much as I support the principles of free markets, I also support the principles embodied in anti-trust legislation
Some regulations have direct cost consequences in the things that have to be done to comply with them. For example, air quality regulations require electricity companies and automobile makers to add equipment to reduce emissions—and these additions have costs (which are passed on to consumers.).
Other regulations have indirect consequences by preventing potentially beneficial activities from occurring. For example, regulations intended to protect wilderness areas and wetlands prevent development that could enhance a local economy.
The issue is not "regulation" versus "no regulation". The issue is how much regulation is necessary—and how much is too much?
Many "Conservatives" argue that all regulations that affect business are unconstitutional. However, in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942), the Supreme Court construed the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution [Art. 1, Sec. 8. Cl. 3] to mean that “even if [an] activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”
However, the mere fact that Congress has the authority to legislate in matters affecting interstate commerce, does not mean that it should regulate all business activities.
The final clause of Art. 1, Sec. 8. limits Congress to doing those things that are "Necessary and Proper" to carrying out the other functions of government. I believe that Congress should exercise restraint in the exercise of this Constitutional power.
Congress cannot be expected to understand, or anticipate, all the regulatory requirements of the laws it enacts. But Congress can, and should, be expected to act when regulations exceed those necessary to achieve its intended objectives.
Almost all regulations proposed by the agencies of the Executive Branch are made subject to a period of public comment before they become effective. Congress also needs to be made a part of this process by requiring that all proposed regulations be made subject to a Congressional “veto.”
Instead of expanding the Government’s enforcement activities, I believe that every law should contain a provision for enforcement by private attorneys who will not motivated, or limited, by political considerations..
We should establish a system of "negative approval" under which a business can propose an action to comply with a particular regulation and that action is deemed "approved" if not rejected within a specified period of time.
Neither Congress nor the regulatory agencies can be expected to identify all of the possible loopholes that will inevitably be found by the clever attorney’s hired to serve big businesses. [Sorry, but it true.] Reduced regulation should not give business a license to engage in any that just happens to slip through a regulatory loophole.
Under current law, only the most extreme instances of corporate malfeasance are subject to challenge by individual shareholders. This can, however, be changed, and the balance of power shifted to investors. To do this, we must:
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” -- Thomas Jefferson
“Under every stone lurks a politician.” -- Aristophanes
“The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.” -- Larry Hardiman
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.” -- Ernest Benn
"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.” -- Henry Kissinger
"The problem with political jokes is they get elected.” -- Henry Cate VII
"You've got to vote for someone. It's a shame, but it's got to be done.” -- Whoopi Goldberg
"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.” -- Ronald Reagan
Paid for and Authorized by
Alan Woodruff for Congress
Campaign Committee
10304 Calle Hidalgo N.W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87114
505-508-3421