Tax Police and the Health Mandate: We Will, We Won’t, We Are Not Saying

William McGurn’s recent column in the Wall Street Journal raises a question the Obama administration does not want to answer:

Who will police the new health care mandate?

If left to the “honor system,” what becomes of the vaunted (and entirely mythical) “cost savings” to be earned by overcharging young, health people and then subsidizing those who are neither young nor healthy?

Poor workers, the young, small businesses: get ready for the tax police with the new “mandate” to slush your money into IRS coffers if you fail to buy the “right” insurance (or any insurance at all).

Then again, the IRS hasn’t said whether it will enforce the mandate: we will, we won’t, we haven’t said . . .

The “historic” law doesn’t clear matters up either. Implementation and enforcement is vital to the success of any policy endeavor. There is a huge literature on that subject alone but in the rush to Make History, our Congress and president didn’t say (or wish to say) how it would be implemented.

So much for deliberative democracy, already in tatters.

Perhaps the reference to the legislation as the ugly slaughter of sausage is inapt: clear as pea soup is a better analogy. Bon appetit!

For an excellent guide to implementation, read the splendid classic by Aaron Wildavsky and Jeffrey Pressman, Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All (1984)

If you trust the IRS to “do the right thing,” read the account of the agency’s first (and last) historian: Shelley Davis, Unbridled Power: Inside the Secret Culture of the IRS (1998).

Cure Voter Apathy: Let Them Vote “None of the Above”

Low voter turnout is often taken as a sign of voter apathy: voters don’t care enough to take the time to show up and vote.  But there are other reasons for not voting.  I know many people who choose not to vote because they believe the whole system is corrupt and they don’t want to be participants.  Others don’t vote because they do not believe any candidates are worthy of their votes.

One solution is to offer voters the option of “None of the Above” in every election where candidates are running for office.  If NOTA receives the highest vote share, then the office would remain vacant until another election is held and a candidate outpolls NOTA.  I am not the first one to think of this, as this website shows.  My guess is that many non-voters would flock to the polls if the NOTA option were available.

Some might criticize this idea on the grounds that it could leave many elective offices vacant for extended periods of time; others would view this as another advantage of the NOTA option rather than a liability.

The Left Called the U.S. Government Fascist, Too

And the media and respectable liberals were not nearly as hysterical about this. Of course, there was a kernel of truth to the left’s descriptions of Bush as a fascist, and there is truth to the criticism of the Obama administration as fascist. It is incoherent to say one is true and not the other, given the extreme continuity in policy between the two presidencies. But while the left is correct that corporatism, crackdowns on civil liberties and perpetual aggressive war are elements of a fascist state, they often forget that socialism and nationalist supremacy over states and individuals are also an important component. Similarly, the right is correct that Obamacare, Cap and Trade, gun control and politically correct thought crime are features of fascism, but they ignore the prison system, police state, national security state and war as being all part of the same horrible package. Under both Republicans and Democrats, we get the fascist policies that both sides criticize when they are out of power.

So is Obama governing like a fascist? In many ways, yes. Did Bush? Same answer. If we could only get some of these Bush-era leftists, seen below, to break bread with the Tea Parties—both groups seeing part of the picture but buying into large parts of what it means to support authoritarianism and indeed national socialism—then maybe we could see some significant progress.

UPDATE: Naomi Wolf, thoughtful leftist critic of the Bush administration, has not betrayed her principles, going so far as to defend the Tea Parties and to say her warnings about American fascism are “unfortunately [even] more relevant” under Obama.

The Broken Window Fallacy

Here’s an excellent (and short) video of Tom Palmer discussing the Broken Window Fallacy (HT: Steve Horwitz). It’s a venerable fallacy, but it’s one from which I hope we might be recovering. A couple of quick Google searches couldn’t turn up anyone saying that the recent earthquake in Haiti will be good for Haitian economic growth.

I had a Mises Daily a few years ago on the fallacy. Bastiat inspired Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, which I discuss here. Here’s a series of interviews with economists on different parts of Economics in One Lesson.

Cross-Posted at the Mises Blog and Division of Labour.

How the Left Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the FBI

At the close of World War I, the federal government created the General Intelligence Division, an agency that eventually morphed into the modern FBI. One of GID’s main tasks was to compile a list of hundreds of thousands of radicals—socialists, anarchists, labor activists and antiwar agitators. Thousands were arrested for being suspected Communists. Hundreds of anarchists were deported to Bolshevik Russia, the silver lining being that left-anarchists like Emma Goldman discovered and wrote about the pure horror of Leninism and the fact that “proletarian dictatorship” was not any sort of improvement upon the wartime corporatism of the U.S. under Woodrow Wilson.

In the late 1920s, the renamed Bureau of Investigation spied on such “socialist” threats as Albert Einstein. Under Franklin Roosevelt, although the FBI continued to keep track of left radicals, it found a new enemy in the form of opponents of the New Deal. FDR used the FBI to spy on multitudes of peaceful rightwingers, unleashing a Brown Scare that was later turned against the left during the McCarthy-era Red Scare. Roosevelt even spied on his Republican presidential opponent, Wendell Willkie.

But during the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations again focused the FBI, for the most part, on disrupting the left. Its COINTELPRO operation—a program to “track, expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities” of political radicals—was a great success. FBI’S COINTELPRO forged letters to bring about violence between the Black Panthers and United Slaves. In 1976, a Senate report showed that the FBI had boasted that “Although no specific counterintelligence action can be credited with contributing to this overall situation, it is felt that a substantial amount of the unrest [among left radical groups] is directly attributable to this program.”

While the FBI was used to infiltrate rightwing anti-Civil Rights and anti-integrationist activists, it was also targeted against stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement. The FBI monitored everyone from Martin Luther King in the 1960s to John Lennon in the 1970s. In the late 70s, the Church Committee reports in the Senate culminated in some effort to rein in this horribly abusive federal agency.

In the 1990s, the FBI was at the center of the militia scare, with its snipers and strongmen turned against peaceful separatist Randy Weaver and his family, and later at the Waco, Texas, standoff with Branch Davidians, at the end of which FBI agents gassed, shot and killed dozens of David Koresh’s followers at their home at Mt. Carmel. They used incendiary devices, which might have brought on the fire, and then lied about it.

It was in this period that the modern left became enamored of the federal police state and especially the FBI. Almost none of them stood up for the Branch Davidians. They came to think of FBI agents as a professional, national and enlightened force populated by such figures as the Jodie Foster character in Silence of the Lambs, an agency that enforced civil rights, protected the country from “rightwing extremists,” and overturned the injustices of local, prejudiced law enforcement.

But during the Bush II era, when the administration was reported to be reviving COINTELPRO, the left’s distrust of national police forces also became revived. In October 2003, the FBI extensively spied on peaceful Iraq war protesters, focusing especially on “anarchists. . . capable of violence.” Bush’s FBI activities were a throwback to the post-World War I General Intelligence Division’s obsession with anarchists. In 2005, the ACLU sued to reveal in court that it had been monitored by the FBI, which had over a thousand pages of documentation on the organization, as had Greenpeace and other politically leftist organizations. Religious pacifist groups were also spied on and infiltrated. And one “terror plot” after another allegedly discovered and broken up by the administration just in the nick of time turned out to be a group of poor saps of below-average intelligence who had been duped by federal informants into saying something threatening or “planning” a terror attack on American infrastructure with no chance at all of being successful, and probably no chance of having even come up with the idea without federal prodding and agitation. The concern about the return of Cold War-era FBI infiltration of fringe groups was once again seen on the left.

Now we are back to the Brown Scare, to militia hysteria, to fears that the out-of-power anti-government right, Christian groups, separatists, gunowners, opponents of national social programs, census and tax resisters and so forth are a great threat to American security. With all the Bush-era anti-Muslim hysteria and war on terror authoritarianism still in place, we have under Obama a revitalization of 1990s-style paranoia about “hate groups,” survivalists and indeed the entire populist right. Just as Bush conservatives could not differentiate Saddam Hussein from Osama bin Laden, or an innocent Muslim doing charity work in Pakistan from an engineer of 9/11, or an antiwar American activist from an anti-American enemy within giving comfort to the enemy abroad, so too do the Obama leftists conflate peaceful separatists with violent racists, peaceful survivalist militia men with Timothy McVeigh.

Every act of violence or alleged plan to commit violence or even adamant anti-government activism that can be pinned on the “extremist right”—the shooter who murdered a guard at the Holocaust museum, the man who murdered an abortion doctor in church, the man who flew a plane through an IRS building, some “militia” members allegedly planning anti-government violence—all of this is seen as part of a general trend, even a rightwing conspiracy, one about as coherent as the neoconservatives’ lumping together all anti-US Muslims under the banner of “Islamofascism.” Indeed, I am surprised that not many have yet warned of the “Christofascist” threat to America, although there has been plenty of talk comparing the tea party movement to the Nazi brownshirts and talk that this kind of militia activity is often associated with “race war,” even when the particular subjects at hand are not even accused of being racially motivated.

And so when a progressive like Rachel Maddow cheers that the Michigan militia members can be indicted and imprisoned without having done anything violent, when she reports that the FBI has infiltrated this group for months and stepped in to arrest them just in the nick of time, we should not be too surprised when she fails to make the obvious connection, and fails to be the least bit skeptical of the federal government’s police agents infiltrating a group for months only to discover that that group’s members are saying things about government that amount to “seditious conspiracy.” What kind of Orwellian world is it when the government can arrest people accused only of planning to commit violence against government agents and unleash a “civil war” that we all know is only a fantasy? What kind of world is it when the very media figure who denounced Bush’s “preemptive war” and Obama’s adoption of Bush’s “pre-crime” approach to imprisoning “enemy combatants” in “prolonged detention” before they commit violence is happy to see a group indicted on federal charges of talking about committing violence—talk that we can safely guess was likely incited by the very FBI that had been infiltrating this group for months? What kind of absurdist dystopia has the left crying foul when a private citizen infiltrates ACORN, but has no similar apprehensions about the FBI infiltrating “extremist” groups and arresting them for “seditious conspiracy”? How can anyone who saw through the Bush lies of war and crackdowns in the name of “national security” and stopping madmen from getting “weapons of mass destruction” really believe that fewer than a dozen Americans with some rifles and some pipebombs were themselves planning to use “weapons of mass destruction” in any way that posed a threat to the U.S. government? And what about the charge of having weapons in connection to a crime—that crime being the intention of one day committing a crime?

Of course, preempting people from committing acts of criminal violence is just and sometimes necessary, but the list of questionable charges levied at these people, on the tail end of months of FBI infiltration, would seem to be in a different category, and at least warrants more critical examination before passing judgment. One can abhor and condemn the idea of violence and oppose vehemently the types of acts that these men and women are accused of planning—and certainly, I do—while still smelling a rat in the way such sting operations are conducted, or at least demonstrating some journalistic skepticism that the government’s side of the story is 100% accurate and justifies the imprisonment of these people and the hysteria on which this kind of government activity thrives.

But once again, with their people at the helm of state, the left has decided to embrace the FBI, take it at its word, assume that people are guilty until proven innocent once accused of guilt by the police state that they now see as the guardian of order against rightwing extremism. Especially strange is the tendency of leftists to fear rightists out of power even more than in power. The same dynamic can be seen on the other side. The left and the right love power, and although that power is often directed against their own when the other side is at the reins, they cannot abandon the idea that a police state can be pinpointed only against those they hate, and not those with whom they sympathize. The responsible, non-partisan and indeed American thing to do is to harbor extreme skepticism toward the state when it spies, infiltrates, arrests and imprisons anyone, and most especially those whose alleged crime is “sedition” or “conspiracy” or in any way being the enemy of the state.

A note on sources: Much of this history is discussed in Geoffrey Stone’s Perilous Times. A lot of the stuff on the FBI’s history I read years back in Ronald Kessler’s Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI. A good treatment of COINTELPRO can be found in James Bovard’s Terrorism and Tyranny. On Waco see Carol Moore’s the Davidian Massacre and my Waco archives. And see the ACLU on some of the surveillance abuses under the Bush administration.

Q&A on Obamacare

A few days ago, via e-mail correspondence, I answered some queries about the new health-care-insurance law put to me by Marina Galisova, a reporter for the Slovak weekly magazine Tyzden. It seems that this interview has formed the topic of an article in the magazine, although I cannot be sure because I cannot read Slovak. In any event, on the assumption that not many readers of The Beacon can read Slovak, either, I reproduce here the questions Galisova put to me and my answers.

1. Under the passed legislation, what does it mean that “every American having health insurance”? How much shall be paid by the federal government and how much by the states to gain this objective?

The new law forces everyone to buy health-care insurance. Many people already have such insurance, most of them as part of the compensation they receive from their employer. In general, these people will be able to keep their current coverage. People who do not buy health-care insurance acceptable to the government will be fined heavily, so besides having no health-care insurance, they will be punished by the government!

2. It looks unlikely that this “reform” will result in a better health care for Americans. However, can you think of at least one example where it might actually help someone?

In general, the new system will make health care worse in the United States, for many reasons. However, some persons will benefit. The major beneficiaries will be those with pre-existing conditions who are currently rejected by insurance companies (the companies do not wish to sell fire insurance to people whose houses are already on fire). The new law forbids insurance companies from rejecting any applicant because of a pre-existing condition. Owing to this new legal requirement, health-care insurance will no longer be true insurance, but merely a third-party payment system for health-care expenses.

3. Will the price of health insurance be kept down by state force? Will Americans be forced to buy health insurance—subsidized by the state? Will Americans be forced to pay premiums, as, if I remember correctly, Dr. Ron Paul has once indicated?

Premiums and benefits of health-care insurance plans are already heavily regulated by the state and federal governments. The new law places many new requirements and restrictions on the companies. It also regulates the difference between the amount they may charge older people and the amount they may charge younger people. The result will be that younger people will have to pay greater premiums than they would pay under a fair insurance scheme in a free market; that is, younger people will be forced to subsidize the health-care expenses of older people (who demand much greater amounts of health care).

4. What, in your opinion, will be the long term effects for American health care? Do you expect deterioration in the quality of services, as is often the case in Canada and in Europe?

This system will almost certainly prove to be much more costly than now projected. Pressure will be created to increase the prices of care and the amount of insurance premiums needed to cover the costs of care. The government will respond by measures that amount to price controls and by selective subsidies to lower-income people and to those with the most political clout. Shortages will increase; waiting times for care will increase; the quality of services will decrease. The overall health care system will cost more and more while delivering worse and worse care. Ultimately, the government will probably throw up its hands and nationalize the entire system because it will have become such a terrible mess.

5. Could you say that the Americans are, as a majority, in favor of this legislation? Not even all Democrats supported the bill…

Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the law just enacted. These poll results seem plausible to me. In truth, however, few Americans have much real knowledge about the present law, which occupies more than 2,000 pages, and even less understanding of the economics and political science required to understand its likely consequences. The law is not simply a shot in the dark, it is a barrage in the dark.

Some Lessons from Easter

This week is the most holy for Christians, as we commemorate Jesus’ trials, scourging, crucifixion, and triumph three days later over the Roman Empire’s most fearsome weapon: death.

Christians and non-Christians alike can take many worthy lessons from these events. As occupying forces, the Romans were terrified of violent insurgents, especially during the Passover season when Jerusalem was full to overflowing. Jewish authorities operating as Roman collaborators, meanwhile, were eager to frame a charge against the devoutly Jewish Jesus, before his revolutionary teaching inflamed the people so much that they caused a riot. So they brought him before the local Roman ruler, Pontius Pilate, on false charges. Determining there was no real case against him, but wishing to keep the peace at all costs, Pilot eventually acceded to the crowd’s insistence and convicted Jesus on hearsay.

So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him.

According to the Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible:

Scourging was the Roman method of examining an alien or a slave—not a punishment, but a means of finding out the truth or extracting a confession.

In other words, torture as an enhanced interrogation technique. Christians might then well question support of a government purporting to represent us that utilizes the very methodologies of those who killed our Savior. And all of us ought to question the use of a method proven for thousands of years now to be neither efficacious nor a winning strategy.

At his crucifixion, Jesus reinforced perhaps the most important lesson of His teachings, when he famously said:

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

For the full impact of this statement, we need to fast-forward to Stephen, the first Christian martyr following Jesus’ ascension.

Stephen had delivered a blistering speech in his own trial—also on trumped-up charges—attacking the Jewish leadership that had sold out to the Romans. Angered, they stoned him. Just before he died, Stephen cried out:

Lord, do not hold this sin against them.

As the famed New Testament scholar and Bishop of Durham, N.T. “Tom” Wright notes, in Acts for Everyone: Part One, this was incredibly remarkable:

There had been many ‘martyrs’ during the last few centuries of Jewish history before the time of Jesus. … One after another (the most striking account is in 2 Maccabees 7) they not only bear witness to their own faith, particularly in the resurrection they believe they will enjoy on the last day; they also threaten their torturer with dire punishments to come. ‘Do not think,’ says one, ‘that God has forsaken our people. Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your descendants!’ That is utterly typical of many Jewish stories of people being tortured and killed for their belief and way of life.

And the extraordinary thing is that, even though the earliest Christians were all first-century Jews to whom that kind of response would have been normal and expected, none of them, going to their death, say anything like that at all. Stephen had just laid a pretty ferocious charge against the Jewish leaders in his speech. But when it comes to his own death, he shouts out a prayer at the top of his voice, as rocks are flying at him and his body is being smashed and crushed, asking God not to hold this sin against them. … It is the up-ending of a great and noble tradition. If we knew nothing about Christianity except the fact that its martyrs called down blessings and forgiveness, rather than cursing and judgement, on their torturers and executioners, we would have a central, though no doubt puzzling, insight into the whole business.

There is of course only one explanation. They really had learned something from Jesus, who made loving one’s enemies a central, non-negotiable part of his teaching (not, as so often in would-be ‘Christian’ society, something one might think about from time to time but not try very hard to put into practice).

So there we have it: a direct order to love our enemies. And there are many remarkable modern examples of Christians doing so: Desmond Tutu’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission following the fall of apartheid; the ministry of survivors of Cambodia’s Killing Fields to the very Khmer Rouge soldiers who tortured them and killed their families; and more.

As the beneficiaries of the greatest blessings in the history of mankind, are we not most especially charged with following this “non-negotiable” order?

Economics and More on Twitter

I joined Twitter a few months ago; you can follow me here. Here’s an interesting article on the effective use of Twitter. I just made a note to myself to give Twitter assignments in my classes this Fall (“use exactly 140 characters to explain X”). Cross-posted at Division of Labour.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Obamacare Is Unconstitutional

In a new interview with Ashley Martella on Newsmax TV, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano discusses the current court challenges to Obamacare. He details why the health care reform just adopted by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama is unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down major portions of it. (Judge Napolitano is author of the new book, Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History.)

In the interview, Judge Napolitano also addresses the following:

• He believes America is in danger of becoming “a fascist country,” which he defines as “private ownership, but government control.” He adds, “The government doesn’t have the money to own anything. But it has the force and the threat of violence to control just about anything it wants. That will rapidly expand under President Obama, unless and until the midterm elections give us a midterm correction – which everyone seems to think, and I’m in that group, is about to come our way.

• Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want— that’s never happened in our history before,” Napolitano says. “My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn’t have that kind of power under the Constitution.”

• The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it—the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others—create “a very unique and tricky constitutional problem” for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause according to Napolitano. “So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don’t have to pay what the rest of us do,” Napolitano says.

• Exempting union members from the so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. “The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can’t say, ‘Here’s a tax, but we’re only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here’s a tax, and we’re only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.’ The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination.”

• Politicians from both parties routinely disregard the Constitutional limits imposed on them by the nation’s founding document, Napolitano says. “The problem with the Constitution is not any structural problem,” says Napolitano. “The problem with the constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don’t take their oath seriously. For example, just a month ago in interviewing Congressman Jim Clyburn, who’s the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House, I said to him, Congressman Clyburn, can you tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is authorized to regulate healthcare? He said, ‘Judge, most of what we do down here,’ referring to Washington, ‘is not authorized by the Constitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution we’re prohibited from regulating healthcare.’ Napolitano says that reflects a misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually is. “He’s turning the Constitution on its head, because Congress is not a general legislature,” he says. “It was not created in order to right every wrong. It exists only to legislate in the 17 specific, discrete, unique areas where the Constitution has given it power. All other areas of human area are reserved for the states.”

• Napolitano says that members of Congress infringe on Constitutional rights because they fail to recognize its basis. “They reject Jefferson’s argument, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator, therefore they’re natural rights, therefore they can’t be legislated away,” Napolitano says. “They think they can legislate on any activity, regulate any behavior, tax any person or thing, as long as the politics will let them survive. They’re wrong, and with this healthcare legislation, they may be proven wrong, in a very direct and in-your-face way.”

Nothing Outside the State: Part II

In a recent post at The Beacon, I sketched the vast expanse of economic and social life that state functionaries (at all levels and in all departments and agencies of government) reach by their direct participation, regulation, surveillance, or manipulation by means of taxes and subsidies. No such sketch, however, can convey the actual mass of the government’s engagement in areas and aspects of life where private individuals and institutions once had decision-making discretion.

Because the full substance of the government’s actions is much too vast for any single person to grasp, I have sometimes found it helpful simply to list government agencies, laws, or regulations that contribute to the enormous aggregate that composes the state (see, for example, the appendices of my book Crisis and Leviathan). This tactic recommended itself to me recently as I was tracking down a statute in the U.S. Code, the official compilation of all federal laws currently in force.

The U.S. Code consists of 50 “titles.” It is published every six years, and in the interim between editions an annual cumulative collection of supplements is published to keep it up to date. Here is the present makeup:

As you might suspect, some of the titles are relatively small, dealing with a limited range of subjects (for example, Title 14, Coast Guard, and Title 44, Public Printing and Documents), whereas others are vast (for example, Title 15, Commerce and Trade, and Title 50, War and National Defense). In my recent search, I happened to be looking for something in one of the gigantic titles, Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. If a government is going to operate a welfare state, as ours does, then it is certain to create an immense mass of laws associated with this area of operation.

Title 42 contains 151 chapters:

Even if you are a government-administration junkie, I suspect that in reading down this list you encountered some surprises. Had you known that the U.S. government has a body of law with regard to leprosy (chapter 3), or youth medals (chapter 18), or—mirabile dictu—privacy protection (chapter 21A), or religious freedom restoration (chapter 21B), or juvenile delinquency prevention and control (chapter 47), or congregate housing services (chapter 89), or membrane processes research (chapter 109A), or encouraging good faith professional review activities (chapter 117), or management of rechargeable batteries and batteries containing mercury (chapter 137), or Jennifer’s law (chapter 140A), or prison rape elimination (chapter 147)?

As one reads these headings, the mind runs wild in imagining what sorts of laws lurk within the chapters. I am sorry to report, however, that should you look inside these sausage factories, you are likely to find yourself quite bewildered because you will typically find language such as the following (taken from Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 103, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability, Subchapter I, Hazardous Substances Releases, Liability, Compensation, Sec. 9621, Cleanup Standards):

References in Text

    The Solid Waste Disposal Act, referred to in subsecs. (b)(1)(B) and (d)(2)(A)(i), (3)(B), is title II of Pub. L. 89-272, Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 997, as amended generally by Pub. L. 94-580, Sec. 2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2795, which is classified generally to chapter 82 (Sec. 6901 et seq.) of this title. Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is classified generally to subchapter III (Sec. 6921 et seq.) of chapter 82 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6901 of this title and Tables.

    The Toxic Substances Control Act, referred to in subsec. (d)(2)(A)(i), (3), is Pub. L. 94-469, Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2003, as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 53 (Sec. 2601 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of Title 15 and Tables.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act, referred to in subsec. (d)(2)(A), is title XIV of act July 1, 1944, as added Dec. 16, 1974, Pub. L. 93-523, Sec. 2(a), 88 Stat. 1660, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter XII (Sec. 300f et seq.) of chapter 6A of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 201 of this title and Tables.

    The Clean Air Act, referred to in subsec. (d)(2)(A)(i), is act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, 69 Stat. 322, as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 85 (Sec. 7401 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7401 of this title and Tables.

    The Clean Water Act, referred to in subsec. (d)(2)(A)(i), (B)(i), is act June 30, 1948, ch. 758, as amended generally by Pub. L. 92-500, Sec. 2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 816, also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is classified generally to chapter 26 (Sec. 1251 et seq.) of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1251 of Title 33 and Tables.

    The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, referred to in subsec. (d)(2)(A)(i), probably means the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-532, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1052, as amended, which enacted chapters 32 (Sec. 1431 et seq.) and 32A (Sec. 1447 et seq.) of Title 16, Conservation, and chapters 27 (Sec. 1401 et seq.) and 41 (Sec. 2801 et seq.) of Title 33. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1401 of Title 33 and Tables.

Okay. Are you clear on the references now? If so, you can now go back through the main body of the section and link the substance of the stipulated requirements and prohibitions to the terms ostensibly clarified by the legislative enactments just listed. Actually, you can’t, or, at all events, you’d be a fool to try. Carrying out such jobs was God’s purpose in putting high-priced lawyers on this earth.

In general, in attempting to determine what the federal laws and regulations require or forbid one to do, a normal human being is completely helpless. The laws might as well be written in Sanskrit. Unfortunately, you cannot rely on your lawyer, either, as you’ll find out when the government takes you to court and the government’s lawyers present a completely different interpretation of the law or regulation from the one your high-priced lawyer insisted you could rely on.

I remind you that the U.S. Code contains not dozens, or scores, or hundreds, or thousands, but probably hundreds of thousands of passages just as crystal clear as the example I’ve given. Of course, the average American has never opened the U.S. Code. He blithely assumes that the law is fair or, if not fair, is at least comprehensible, if not to him, then to an attorney. It has been said (by Charles Dickens’s character Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist) that the law is an ass, as it no doubt is. Few American citizens realize, however, that the mass of the ass fills a substantial portion of the known universe.

According to Paul Simon, there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, but I am willing to conjecture that there must be hundreds of thousands of ways to get yourself in a position to be fined or sent to prison in this country. Rule of law? Not quite what F. A. Hayek had in mind.

  • Catalyst
  • Beyond Homeless
  • MyGovCost.org
  • FDAReview.org
  • OnPower.org
  • elindependent.org