More Over Regulated

If you rounded up all 55 of NC’s Occupational Licensing Agencies (OLA) and put them under one roof it wouldn’t be a massive new department of state government – but 485 employees is nothing to sneeze at either.

Altogether, those 55 boards handle $67 million dollars a year.

By way of comparison, with 2/3 of the OLA’s 485 employees, the General Assembly budgets and oversees $54 billion a year from state and federal taxpayers – 800 times as much money as the OLAs.

A better comparison may be the State Treasurer’s office which only has 334 employees, a third less than the OLAs, while managing $90 billion in retirement funds for teachers and state and local employees.

You can say I’m comparing apples and oranges – but look north to Virginia.

If Virginia managed their licensing agencies like NC, they would have to raise license fees by 40%. Instead, Virginia keeps their expenses down ($68 per licensee vs. NC’s $96) while handling just as many license related complaints and disciplining more licensees than NC.

The OLAs say these costs really don’t matter since their $67 million comes from fees paid by the people they license instead of taxes. And that’s true – OLAs do not receive tax dollars. But the money has to come from somewhere. And the answer is, ultimately, it comes out of the pockets of consumers and customers.

And, in the end, it doesn’t really matter whether the legislature is pulling dollars out of your pocket with taxes, or by granting an OLA the power to charge your barber for a license before he can give you a haircut. It’s still part of his cost of doing business. And it’s still dollars coming out of your pocket.

Naturally, OLAs keep telling legislators not to change a thing – that everything is fine.

But a little digging through financial statements shows OLAs have turned into a costly mess. Granted, this mess has been years in the making and isn’t the most urgent problem facing taxpayers – but for those of us who are fiscal conservatives, it’s getting harder and harder not to clean it up.

New Technology, Old Regulations

Out in the private sector, things change in the blink of an eye – while government struggles to keep up. And, in fact, government doesn’t have much reason to keep up.

A change in technology may offer the opportunity to save money. The private sector jumps at a bargain. For a bureaucrat, saving money may mean a reduction in his department’s budget, fewer government employees, and a loss of power.

But sometimes, outside forces overwhelm even the most cautious bureaucrat – to force a change. Transportation funding is an example. State governments are struggling with a simple fact: Better fuel economy is good news for drivers but means fewer gas tax dollars to build and repair roads.

Some propose toll roads as a solution. But anyone who lives near I-77 north of Charlotte can tell you toll roads also create problems of their own.

So maybe it’s time we looked at changing a few obsolete regulations.

Years ago, when we had to cross a small stream and the size didn’t require a bridge, we used a round pipe or a square pipe called a culvert. Back then we just laid the pipe on the stream bottom knowing the water would rise up to get through then waterfall out the other end.

It was a solution that worked until the environmentalists pointed out it created an environmental problem – by creating barriers for fish and other water creatures who couldn’t safely navigate the smooth concrete bottom, much less, climb the wall at either end.

So the environmentalists proposed a solution called stream mitigation. What that meant was simple: Every time the state blocked a stream with a culvert, it had to go out and find a degraded stream somewhere else and improve it to offset the harm done by the culvert. It’s hard to argue with mitigation as a theory but hard evidence of a benefit is less obvious.

And one thing is certain, mitigation costs a lot of money – almost $800 per linear foot of impacted stream. For a steam crossing requiring a 300-foot culvert, that means mitigation costs of $233,000. That adds up to NC spending over $5 million per year for mitigation. And that’s $5 million that could have been spent to build regular roads instead of toll roads.

Over the last 20 years the private sector found a better way to cross streams. They simply started burying culvert bottoms so that the stream flowed though unchanged. The creek critters could freely move from side to side.

It was a win-win solution and you’d think, surely, the regulators in Raleigh would have responded by not requiring mitigation where better technology could be used.

No. They didn’t. Apparently the regulators still live in 1995.

It gets worse. Mitigation in not just expensive, it’s complicated.

To speed up highway projects engineers started going around the need for mitigation by building bridges instead of using culverts.

That did make projects simpler and faster.

And much more expensive.

Short span bridges cost twice as much as culverts, last half as long, and add more tens of millions to the taxpayer’s bill.

This has gotten silly. With a little effort, and innovation, we can kill three birds with one stone: We can cut government spending, protect the environment and build more roads.

Helping the Poor

Winning the battle and losing the war is an old story.

Fervent Bernie Sanders-type Democrats here in North Carolina are still hollering for a return of the Earned Income Tax Credit – or EITC – which the General Assembly ended three years ago.

The EITC was a bit of a misnomer. It wasn’t just a tax credit that returned dollars to a worker that had been withheld from his or her paycheck. There was another component of the law, called ‘refundable,’ which let a person get a refund check even if he or she did not pay taxes. In other words, a person who paid no tax could get, say, a $200 refund. Or a person who paid $200 in taxes could get a $400 refund.

That leaves the realm of tax credits and crosses into the realm of welfare.

Here’s my point: If the goal is to help the working poor there’s a better way. For example, a current proposal would raise the ‘zero bracket’ for a married couple from $15,500 to $17,500. That means every couple would pay no tax at all on their first $17,500 in income. They would get to keep every penny of the $17,500. No matter whether their annual income is $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000. Which means a significant tax cut.

Equally important, that tax cut is bigger than the tax credits that would be available by going back to the EITC – so it helps the poor more. And, at the same time, it helps the middle class.

Our more liberal Democrats are determined to refight the EITC battle. But does that battle matter if we find a better way to help the working poor?

Over Regulated

There is plenty of talk going around these days about political polarization, but occasionally the liberals and conservatives do come together and agree.

It was only a small NC legislative subcommittee hearing, but there they were, representatives from the conservative John Locke Foundation and the liberal N.C. Justice Center, agreeing there was too much regulation.

In this case, the regulations they were agreeing on involved 55 state commissions and state agencies that grant licenses to some 700,000 NC workers – such as doctors, attorneys or pastoral counselors.

Now, practically speaking, giving a Commission the power to determine who can be, say, an undertaker, gives that Commission a lot of control over the free market. They can literally determine how many funeral homes there are in a county.

NC, and other states, have long required licenses for professions like doctors and attorneys. And no one is arguing doctors shouldn’t be licensed.

But around 1973, the number of licensed occupations in NC started increasing like mushrooms after a summer rain.

Here’s where the two ends of the political spectrum agreed:

  1. Licensing creates a barrier to entry for workers in general, and particularly the poor, as they try to climb the economic ladder.
  2. Licensing raises the costs of services, which takes money out of everyone’s pockets, but hits the poor hardest.
  3. And, as a group, licensed professions experience slower growth rates than their unlicensed peers.

In other words, unnecessary licensing hurts workers, consumers and our economy.

Granted there are some obvious winners. If you already hold a license to be an undertaker, you find yourself in a protected environment that limits bothersome competition. That’s why people with licensees are quick to argue that uneducated consumers need the protection licensing offers. Without that extra bureaucratic protection, they say, people will be exposed to unnecessary risk from bad actors.

That may have been true 50 years ago. But in the age of smart phones and Yelp, there may be a better way to protect consumers than more bureaucracy.

Special Sessions

They’ve printed the same charge over and over – it seems like just about every newspaper article and every editorial harps on one fact: It costs $42,000 a day for the General Assembly to be is session.

I guess that’s a backdoor way of opposing holding a special session to repeal Charlotte’s city ordinance allowing grown men to enter restrooms occupied by women and young girls.

That ordinance goes into effect April 1st – on April Fool’s Day – but, unfortunately, it’s not a joke.

I admit I am all for cutting government spending. And if the media wants to support some real spending cuts there’re plenty of wasteful programs that make the cost of one day of the General Assembly look like peanuts. After all, state government spends twice that $42,000 amount every minute of the year.

There’s actually a simple reason for holding a special session: According to lawyers advising the legislature, once the Charlotte ordinance goes into effect it can create what’s called a ‘vested right’ in legal parlance. That means waiting may give a grown man, who likes the idea of entering a Charlotte locker room full of young ladies, a legal argument that changing the law denies his vested right.

That sounds plumb crazy to me. But I’m not an attorney. And I’ve seen liberal federal judges do crazier things. And not very long ago.

I’ve also, over the years, have had the misfortune of paying attorney’ s fees, now and then, and understand in a case like this the legal bills would surely end up costing taxpayers a lot more than $42,000.

So if we’re going to stop the Charlotte City Council’s ordinance it’s best to get it over with before April 1. Acting now is like getting a chance to buy an insurance policy after the storm predictors have said there’s a hurricane heading your way. It may cost something. But it saves a lot more.

Monopolies

I received another response to my piece criticizing requiring a farmer to obtain a government permit before renting his land to a solar farm – this time from a respected political group.

The group began by explaining carefully that it opposed ‘all energy tax loopholes and subsidies, regardless of the energy source.’ Which is fine. So do I.

Then it added, disapprovingly, that ‘North Carolina’s energy market currently exists in a monopoly system.’ Which is fine, too. No disagreeing with that.

But, then, the group declared that “the REPs” are a bad law.

Now, the REPs are a little known provision in utilities law that make it possible for independent solar companies to produce electricity in North Carolina.

Without REPs, utility monopolies (in North Carolina that basically means Duke Energy) have complete control of the market. The monopoly can put any independent solar company it wants out of business by simply blocking the right to build its product. REPs are what give independent solar companies a way to sell electricity in the marketplace. No REPs, no competition.

I’ll grant REPs are a peculiar provision. About the only time something like REPs make sense is when the government has granted one company – like Duke Energy – a monopoly over a market.

Since they’re peculiar, in a way doing away with REPs looks sensible. But, in fact, all it actually does is strengthen the monopoly. And reduce competition.

Is that conservative?

Regulation on Top of Regulation

We’ve reached a peculiar place in politics.

Historically, conservatives have opposed excessive regulation and rightfully so. Regulations are like wind resistance when you drive your car. The bigger the car, the harder it has to work to move along at 70 miles per hour and the more it costs to drive.

Cutting foolish regulations is like rounding the corners and cutting the size. For a strong economy and maximum jobs, we want regulations that look more like a sedan than a box truck.

So it was odd when Republicans started hollering that state government should increase regulations on solar farms – some politicians even went so far as to suggest requiring a farmer to obtain a state permit before leasing his land for a solar farm.

It gets worse: In fact, a solar company already needs to get a permit from the Utility Commission to build a solar farm. It’s not a simple process and to further complicate it, when they process that application , the Utility Commission sends out notice to  seven state departments, seven divisions and four sections*.

Counting the Commission itself, that’s 19 bureaucracies that get a chance to stop, or at least delay construction of a solar farm.

Now, some say that 19 bureaucracies still isn’t enough.

How is that conservative?

* 1)      Dept. of Environmental Quality

               –          Division of Air Quality

               –          Division of Water Resources

               –          Division of Water Quality

               –          Division of Coastal Management

               –          Division of Environmental Health

               –          Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources

               –          Division of Waste Management

•  Solid Waste Section

•  Hazardous Waste Section

•  Superfund Section

  2)      NC Wildlife Resources Commission

  3)      Dept. of Transportation

  4)      Dept. of Cultural Resources

  5)      Dept. of Agriculture

  6)      Dept. of Commerce

  7)      Dept. of Public Safety 

              –  Emergency Management Section

Gerrymandering and the Supreme Court

It’s easy to make fun of redistricting maps drawn by the NC legislature. It’s not a pretty picture.

While the just adopted new Congressional District maps have fewer splits of counties (13) and precincts (12) than any maps in recent NC history they still leave you wondering why, for example, the 5th Congressional District, which already was 10 counties big, needed to reach into Catawba County to include two precincts and a portion of a third.

What difference did it make that it’s worth the confusion of splitting a precinct? And putting a handful of people in Catawba County in the 5th District?

Was this just more political gerrymandering to move Republicans and Democrat votes around?

The fact is the legislature had little or no choice – they were simply following orders laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1964, in Wesberry v. Sanders  , the Supreme Court told us the Constitution requires States to select congressmen by elections in districts composed “as nearly as is practicable” of equal population.

Which the legislature’s redistricting attorneys translated into “one person, one vote” and means exactly that. There is only a one vote difference in the total population of each of the new 13th NC Congressional Districts.

Balancing districts perfectly with 733,000 people sounds hard but it’s even harder than you think. If you need 150 votes to balance, you can’t just grab the closest 150 residents across a county line, you have to balance using entire voting blocks, (which are smaller geographic pieces that, together, make a precinct). So you may end up including a voting block of 250 people in one county and then subtracting a voting block of 100 people in another county to get the net increase of 150 people and make the districts balance. When you do that, you split two counties.

If this sounds a bit crazy, it is.  It’s unlikely that the census, taken every ten years by temporary workers is anywhere close to that level of accuracy. Even if it was, one week later a family moves and the district is no longer equal.

In our state legislative districts, we allow a 5% margin in balancing districts. A margin a fraction of that size in the Congressional Districts could eliminate splitting precincts and a lot of split counties.

But I’m not sure you have to understand mathematics to be a Federal judge.

Is That Conservative?

I stirred up a bit of controversy with my article about the proposal to require a farmer to have the government’s permission to lease his land to a solar farm.

One fellow wrote me that he agreed the idea didn’t sound like something government needed to do. But then he added what government really should do is pass regulations telling the farmers what the leases ought to say – for example, how to dispose of solar cells.

So now, instead of a permit, we have government dictating leases to farmers?

Is that conservative?

Why shouldn’t the farmer have the freedom to handle his own business dealings?

It’s a fact I have yet to meet a government employee I would recommend a property owner use for real estate advice.