Rockridge High School

Taylor Ridge, IL

Teacher: Mrs. Downey

Government Regulations Essay

Crystal D. Wanek

Grade 12

The Right Amount of Government Regulation

As a teenage member of the United States of America, I consider myself to be lucky enough to have a government that ensures my health and freedom through its many regulations. I feel secure knowing that my home, my car, and the road that I take to school everyday all meet federal regulations designed to keep me safe. People may worry that too much regulation restricts personal freedoms. Have they ever looked outside of the U.S. borders or traveled away from the safety of the U.S.?

In other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, women must wear robes that almost completely cover their bodies and must be with a man to go into public. Is that freedom like we know it? These rules are part of their country's regulations. So, are our regulations too strict? Here in the U.S. we may be so scantily dressed that we are almost nude. To some, this clothing policy may be too lax; others contest that there is nothing wrong with nudity.  I don't think that our regulations are too strict. In fact, I think that the government tries not to regulate too many things for fear that we would lose a little bit of that freedom which we hold so dear. I feel that the government regulates enough to ensure the safety of its citizens, while not over-regulating to infringe on the public's freedom(s).

Let's face it; people will try to get away with anything. If regulations were not in place, what would keep people from taking advantage of others? For example, we can look at minimum wage. Before the minimum wage was set in the U.S., employees would often have to work upwards of 14 hours, at a low pay, to be able to buy the bare essentials. Now it is harder for employers to underpay their employees, because the government regulates wages to make sure that the employees are not getting taken advantage of. Regulations also keep things fair for everyone. In the U.S. you must be a citizen, 18 years or older to vote for president. In this way the U.S. gives every adult citizen the chance to have a fair say in who they want to lead the country. I feel that this is fair, because the people who will be affected the most should make the decision. For example, the president is looked upon to help protect our safety. During the Clinton Administration regulations on food and water came to the attention of the public. Regulations on the levels of arsenic in drinking water are monitored closely; in that same way meat is checked for the ecoli virus. These regulations were not put into place to encroach on our freedom. They are there simply to ensure that our "freedom" is fair, safe, and healthy.

I have often heard people moaning about farm regulations on ditches, or saying how terrible it was to try and build a house because of the building regulations, or having to cut down a tree because it was in violation of power company regulations. But don't they understand that these regulations are there to protect them and others? These three cases had special circumstances. All of the people affected thought that the regulations enforced in each case were "dumb" as one person called them or "...had gone too far!" but I think that in order to keep the public safe, sometimes someone must give. It is everyone's right to decide if they are being over regulated, but their decision may not always be in the best interest of the majority. The house was built, but was modified to meet water codes; the tree was cut down, because it would soon (not yet) be in the lines; and finally the ditch was dug and tiled, even after the farmer no longer used the land. Think about them this way. The tree was a few inches away from causing a four-block power failure, in which case it would have been cut down anyway. The ditch had to be dug because if a flood came, the field's run-off would have flooded nearby fields. Finally, the house needed to be modified to ensure owner and neighbor safety. 

I will admit that sometimes a regulation's cons outweigh the pros. Regulations can cost in many different ways. Loss of energy is one. Roofers had to strip a half furnished roof because it had not been inspected yet. This scenario also wastes time, especially in a stormy season when you need a roof. The taxpayers’ money may also be wasted. For example, (above) the government built a ditch on land that was no longer farmed. Lawsuits against regulations often cost many thousands of dollars. In addition, everything costs more when we factor in the paper and processing. Finally, all of these things factor in when we realize that while the U.S. is focused on wasting time and energy, on building a "worthless ditch", they are taking away from enforcing and/or creating newer or updated regulations that will better benefit the future.

What we don’t realize, though, is that we are benefiting the future. I’m not perfect and neither are the lawmakers. Sometimes money will be wasted. In order to create a good a system we must first try something. No system will ever be perfect. It is under our system, though, that everyday I wake up free. To me, freedom is only as good as the quality of life that surrounds it. In the U.S. our lives are blessed with sanitary conditions, plenty of food, frivolous gadgets, our hopes and dreams, because of our country's regulations. Despite our nation's many imperfections, I am proud to be a member of the “land of the free” and will stand by our government’s regulations to ensure a bright future for generations to come.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q1 What is the only way to prevent hijackers from gaining control of an airplane according to the unknown author?

The author thinks that "hardening" the cockpit and keeping the door, leading into it, closed during a flight will prevent the hijacking of planes.

Q2 What are the arguments given by lobbyists for the Bells in favor of HR 1542 (Tauzin-Dingell Bill) and arguments given by their opponents against this legislation?
CQ May 5 p 1012

Lobbyists for Bells argue that Bells needs regulatory relief in order to compete with other internet providers, where opponents claim that the bill would give Bells a stronghold on internet development and may delay the creation of new Web technology.

Q3- Why do small-business groups like HR 1831? From the small amount of information presented in your required reading, do you think the legislation is a good idea? Why?
CQ May 19 p. 1161

Small-business groups like the bill, because it is helping them conserve money so that they may compete. I think the legislation is good. Money making (large) companies will still be required to donate money for cleaning up the land, which most large companies are guilty of dirtying in the first place. 

 Q4- Give an argument in favor of government regulating activities such as rollerblading and bungee-jumping.
Governing, March 1993 p 23

To tell the truth, I am not much of an optimist when it comes to human behavior. Thrill seekers (bungee-jumpers and roller bladers) often do things that are harmful, even tragic to themselves without noticing or even thinking twice about it. It is because we (advocates for the regulation of activities and I) love these individuals; yes, I too have thrill seekers in my family; we feel we need to protect them. Lawmakers, as human beings, understand that when a person is too excited about something, that person forgets him/herself and the ones who love him/her and does something irrational. It is because we have seen too many tragedies, deaths from faulty bungee cords and injuries that occur to a skater when he tries a stunt and fails, that we feel there must be legislation to keep the thrill seeker safe from his/her urge to take on that thrill that will end his/her life.

 Q5- Define a “burden hour.”
CQ ‘April 28 p. 896

"...the time it takes to collect data and fill out federal forms, surveys and reports." (Mike Christensen)

Q6- Why was Connecticut Senator, Joseph Lieberman, concerned enough to vote against the nomination of Professor John Graham as administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the current Bush administration?
CQ May 26 p 1229

Lieberman was concerned that Graham would weaken federal health, environment, and safety standards, because in past years Graham had criticized clean-air and clean-water statutes.

Q6a Graham is a proponent of “risk analysis.” How is risk analysis defined on page 992 of the May 5, 2001 issue of Congressional Quarterly Weekly?

"... A tool researchers use to evaluate the relative harm that can come from various threats to human health and the environment."

Q6b Who was the first president to order federal agencies to weigh potential costs and benefits when writing a rule?
CQ May5 2001 p 993

Jimmy Carter was the first president to weigh the potential costs against the benefits when writing a new rule.

Q6- How much would compliance with OSHA’s regulations to limit injuries or disabilities from performing repetitive tasks cost according to an estimate by business groups as reported in the 2000 CQ Almanac? What was the response of OSHA and Labor Department officials?
CQAlmanac p 2-111

The cost is estimated at 14-80 billion dollars a year. OSHA and Labor Department officials contend that the law would be flexible and would save companies 9 billion dollars a year that would have been spent on" lost productivity."

Q7- What was the makeup of the “iron triangle” during the Reagan years and what do environmentalists and consumer activists foresee as its composition in the current Bush administration?
CQ May 5 p 990

In the time of President Reagan the "iron triangle" was made up of Democratic committee chairmen, and interest groups working with agency officials to achieve goals more effectively. Now, it is foreseen that the "Bush triangle" will consist of industry officials, the chairmen of the GOP, and the White House.

Q8- Name 5 actions of the Bush administration that have drawn criticism from Environmentalists.
CQ May 5, 2001 p. 994 and 995

The Bush administration has "killed" Clinton's ergonomics! This administration has reversed regulations that would make standards for the clean-up of hard rock mining operations tougher and put down the Clinton rule to lower the levels of arsenic in the United States' water. Bush also did not keep a campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide and rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which would have dealt with the major concern of global warming.

Q9- What did the executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1981 and still in effect today, require agencies to prove before new regulations were enacted? How did the Democratic House counter in 1986?
CQ May 5, 2001 p. 995

Reagan's order gave the OMB more power to oversee that an agency's proposed regulations would have pro's that would outweigh any cost(s). In 1986, the House needed to get around the OMB, so they cut funding! When the OMB disclosed documents on White House regulatory decisions, their funding was restored.

Q10- On the average, how long does it take to build an airport? A highway?
CQ May 19, 2001 p 1163

An airport lasts around 15 years and a highway's lifespan is around 12 years.

Q11- Discuss the pros and cons of licensing requirements.
Wall Street Journal June 18, 1993

A pro of licensing requirements is that they (are meant) to protect a consumer from service providers who are not as skilled as they say/ think that they are. Licensing is also supposed to promote fair business competition. To get licensed you must follow rules that will benefit the safety of your customers and workers.

Licensing may, however, be unfair to small businesses. Often small business people are skilled but do not meet the requirements to be licensed. It also may take more money to become licensed than a small-time businessperson would be able to afford.

Q12- Discuss the pros and cons of master plans and planning departments.
Taking A Stand On Regulation pp 80-82

From the reading I took that  "Humpty" represented the pros and "Dumptey" told only cons. "Humpty" felt that communities benefit from growth management, because it looks ahead to prevent damage. He thinks that the success of the intervention matters on the branch of government that creates/ enforces the regulation, though. "Dumptey" agrees with this, but thinks that boards operate arbitrarily and that planning departments are made up of unqualified people. I tend to agree with "Dumptey". From experience, I have seen unqualified people make it on boards and I have also seen regulations fail because of it.

Back