Unfunded mandates | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    It is amazing how many things politicians and bureaucrats can think up for other people to do. We are repeatedly directed to implement all manner of great sounding things. These great sounding things come in two rather distinct, but equally unsavory, flavors. In the first case, we have the government laying requirements on subordinate levels of government. We see requirements flowing from the Feds to States (the Tenth Amendment be damned) and then from the State to County. In the second case the Politicians and bureaucrats (all levels) get "help" from assorted "do-gooders" like the "food police" and frequently out of control tree huggers to dream up even more mandates to lay directly on the public. In both cases it is the populace which ultimately bears the brunt of the government mandates. The difference is that in the first case, the impact is indirect and in the latter it is direct. In both cases, what they amount to are unfunded mandates.

    The "indirect" impositions seem to be worst in the area of education. The "direct" impositions seem to be most prevalent (and even worse) in the environmental area, which as used here, includes global warming and all its conjured effects..

    Indirect impositions: The Federal No Child Left Behind mandated testing program, as well as the State mandated More at Four "and other "get our kids ready for school programs" are prime examples. Even though legitimate studies have documented the fact that any gains realized by the children in these programs does not last past about the third grade, no one seems willing to "dump" them or even acknowledge the studies..

    Sometimes the Feds or the state will fund the first year or two of their programs and after that it's up to the recipients to pay for the continuation of the mandated programs. The state complains (and rightly so) that the feds are imposing unfunded mandates on us. But when the state turns right around and imposes their ideas on the counties (without sending any money along with the requirement), there is not a single word out of the state politicians and bureaucrats talking about unfunded mandates. The complaints suddenly shift to the counties who complain about the state mandates as the states complained about the federal mandates. And so it goes...

    Clearly, when it comes to education, the feds (and the teachers' unions) know better than the state, and the state knows better then the counties. Or so they seem to think. Nobody seems to think that the taxpayers have enough sense to do any thinking (or anything else) for themselves, so the bureaucrats and politicians must do it.

    When we rebel, they threaten to withholding funding. "Funding", that's political speak for our money with which they have absconded. Somewhere along the line, it became "their" money and now we are beholden to them and must obey if we are to get any of it back. Interesting how these things work (or is it "don't" work??)

    Direct Impositions: Although government agencies impose environmental requirements on other government agencies, it is individual home owners and entrepreneurs who seem to bear the brunt of these intrusions into our lives. As mentioned earlier. the "direct" impositions seem to be most prevalent in the environmental area. A good case in point was the PCS Phosphate EIS required before they could expand their mining operation. It took several years and surely more "person hours" than anyone would even dare to count or admit to.. If that isn't an unfunded mandate, I'll throw in with you. The long and short of it is that it takes years and years, tons of money, and truckloads of paper to complete Environmental Assessments and the follow on Environmental Impact Statements.

    Speaking of paper, it certainly looks as though the folks who invented the EIS preparation and review process would seem to be working at cross purposes with themselves. The amount of paper that goes into the preparation, review etc. of EISs raises an interesting issue..That would be the issue of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global warming it causes. (If you don't believe me, ask Al the Goracle.)

    It would seem that all the environmentalists ensconced in all the review agencies and outside groups in their efforts to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere pay no attention to all those trees that are being cut down to make the paper that is used up in drafting, reviewing, redrafting, rereviewing, and sooner or later finalizing an EIS. What they seem to have forgotten is that trees inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O2 . In effect, by requiring the amount of detail and numbers of reviews and revisions that they require, the environmentalists are causing the CO2 in the atmosphere to not be decreased as they argue to decrease the CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you suppose any of them ever thought of (or cared about) that?? Indeed, how many trees (read forests) could we save if we didn't waste all that paper?? And, even more to the point, how much CO2 could those trees have "consumed" if we hadn't cut them down to feed the paper manufacturing industry and the bureaucrats whose demands are being satisfied??

    Then there are the so called scientists that make us stop construction on our bridges when the anadromous fish (that would be fish that live in the sea and reproduce in fresh water) are scheduled to pass by on their way upstream. I say "scheduled" because that is how the shutdowns are scheduled. The fishermen tell us that apparently no one bothers to determine if the "runs" upstream are early or late or "on time". You ask to see the studies which support their action and are told that the decision is made on the basis of their knowledge and experience. Let us suppose that these so called scientists have been "at it" for twenty years. What we are left to ponder is whether they have one years experience twenty times or a real twenty years experience during which they have learned and matured. (The Beaufort Observer editor has tried, unsuccessfully, to engage DENR in a conversation about the subject.). The failure to engage in meaningful dialogue about the subject certainly implies that their experience falls into the first category. And don't you know that their shutting down of bridge construction only delays the completion which imposes a direct cost on the folks who are forced to take lengthy detours as well as the merchants who lose business due to the detour.

    And how about the mandates that may sound good but not only don't work, but actually do more harm than good. Take for example corn based ethanol (perhaps all ethanol, but "corn based" for sure). It is proven to take more energy to produce than we are able to realize from it. So, why do we continue to support it?? Votes, would be my guess. The environment and the long suffering tax payers be damned. Surprise!!

    And then there's the "food police".

    Among other things, the food police want to do away with soft drinks at schools as a way to reduce the amount of sugar consumed by our kids. They seem to be succeeding. What we have not heard them condemn (yet) is "sweetened tea". That might work in the North, but it would be nothing short of blasphemy here in the South. They did seem to be making some progress in Mass. where they succeeded in getting "Bake Sales" at schools outlawed. That prohibition lasted until the public heard about it, which suggests that even in the North people may still have a little sensibility left. All these things not withstanding, our kids don't seem to be getting any slimmer.

    What we need to do is turn the process inside out. In the case of the food police, maybe we should force them to do things they don't want to - like eating more fast food or whatever and then substantially increasing their exercise regimen so as to not gain weight. After all, turnabout is fair play, isn't it??

    In the environmental area, how about requiring the so called "review authorities" to respond to an announcement that someone is proposing a project with a recitation of the specific and definitive requirements they would impose on the sponsor. The feedback should include an engineering estimate of the cost of implementing whatever requirements they are placing on the project sponsor with the full and complete understanding that they will be paying the cost of fulfilling whatever their requirements are. The sponsor will then know what requirements are being imposed on them from the "git - go"and can satisfy them without fear that an otherwise viable project will be "priced out of the market" by unreasonable and often inane demands from people with no "skin" in the game. This "inside out" process should really reduce the volume of frivolous requirements and accelerate the review and approval process. Wouldn't that be nice??

    This concept could also be expanded to things like ADA compliance and virtually any other activity the cost of which is increased due to government regulations that drive up the cost of the project.

    Let those who demand all this extra stuff pay for it directly. This solution needs to be implemented when "new requirements" (including retrofits) which limit the use and enjoyment of one's property are imposed on businesses or individual property owners (after all, it amounts to no more than a "taking" which clearly makes it subject to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment). The cost of such "improvements" including any resulting "loss of value" should be paid by whomsoever is the source of the"requirement" (read imposition).

    D'ya think??