Tag Archives: regulations

American Capitalism & The Illusion of Laissez Faire

To draw from an opening phrase, in the beginning, there was capitalism. More accurately, at the beginning of our Constitutional Republic, government was committed to limiting – drastically – it’s footprint in the new American marketplace. Americans were free from the tyranny of government interference leveled at the former colonists at the hand of King George III. Our Founders and Framers sought to secure the right of the individual not only to property, but to commerce in a form lightly touched by government. My, how far we have fallen from the Framer’s original intent.

The original intent of the Framers where commerce was concerned – and especially under the Articles of Confederation – was to leave the new American people to reap the benefits of their crafts and labors. The Framers embraced a laissez faire system of capitalism. Laissez faire capitalism is defined as:

“…a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights.”

A system of government’s only responsibility in a laissez faire capitalist system, where commerce was concerned and if adhering to the original intent of the Framers, was:

“…to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud…

“…a system of checks and balances so ordered to protect the rights of the individual, from criminals and most importantly from the democratically elected voices who claim to speak for the ‘public good.’”

Today’s American “free market system” is actually anything but a laissez faire capitalist system; a free system.

Starting a small business today requires that the aspiring entrepreneur incur significant start-up costs including fees, costly regulatory acquiescence, licensure requirements, taxes, tariffs, diversity quota hiring and other associated costs, taxes, actions and/or fees. Add to that the impossible task of acquiring necessary to-market development capital from a financial institution – many of which were afforded lifesaving financial infusions of taxpayer dollars, courtesy of crony capitalists in Washington, DC – and you have a formula for a stagnant economy and high unemployment for the “producers,” and the selective enrichment of the connected, the elite and the “chosen few.”

This was not the case so long ago. And as little as 30 years ago, starting a small business meant reaping the rewards of ingenuity and hard work. Someone with a dream; someone with a “good idea,” was able to acquire capital to launch small business initiatives based on that tangible idea; based on a well-crafted business plan and model. Sadly, today, no one “invests in ideas” anymore. Financial institutions and capable venture capitalists balk at the “good idea”; recoil from the uncertainty of start-up entrepreneurship because of the non-guarantee of return on investment, even as many of them have been deemed “too big to fail” when they make bad business decisions of their own, only to receive government-funded (read: taxpayer-funded) bailouts. This all happening while the “good idea” start-up concepts wither on the vine for lack of start-up capital.

Additionally, many a creative entrepreneur is neutered – or hamstrung – by the fact that the “powers that be” have declared they did not jump through the traditional “educational hoops”; did not attain the necessary piece of paper and the required student loan debt to be considered “competent” or “intelligent” enough to conceive of the “next big thing.” Of course, this certainly must come as a surprise to Bill Gates, or to the late Steve Jobs, two pioneers of the computer age who dropped out of college. So, too, must is be shocking news to the many “gangsta” rap moguls who possess a depth of language proficiency usually reserved for those with a single or low double-digit intelligence quotient, and most of whom know the assembly of automatic weaponry better than algebraic theory.

And while the successful navigation of the “educational hoops” does not guarantee entrée into the realm of the financially anointed, sometimes the connections and friendships acquired at many upper-echelon secondary education establishments can serve to circumvent the ties that bind “producer Americans” to the grind of the average. Yes, I am talking about elitist crony capitalism.

Case in point: Toni Townes-Whitley.

According to TheDailyCaller.com:

“Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million [failed] Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the US arm of a Canadian company.

“Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.”

Coincidentally, George Schindler, the president of CGI Federal’s Canadian parent CGI Group, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract. What a coincidence…

What does all of this have to do with laissez faire capitalism? Well, actually, nothing. It has nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism. And that’s the point.

Considering that our economic system has turned into a fiscal bordello of short-cuts for the Progressive chosen few, bailouts for the “too big to fail” financial institutions, and a playground for the crony capitalists, is it any wonder the financial markets have ceased reflecting the health of the American economy? How are investors supposed to know when the next major economic disaster is approaching when risky investments and questionable financial schemes are always rewarded in their failures and losses with government-backed (read: taxpayer-funded) bailouts? For the “chosen ones,” where is the “risk”?

The original intent of the Founders and Framers was to have an “American capitalism”; a system of commerce and investment based on achievement, investment, hard work, production and, yes, failure. The American system of capitalism was designed to leave the evolution of society and the decisions about the “common good” to the people. Today’s “anything but free market system” is a disingenuous scheme establishing pre-determined winners and losers; a manipulation of the laissez faire capitalist purity that promotes equality in outcome over an equality of opportunity: economic and social justice.

In an economic system enslaved by the Progressive ideology, economic and social justice is of a paramount importance, trumping the small business, the innovator, the entrepreneur and the producer; trumping and extinguishing opportunity for all, opportunity guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

An economic system enslaved by the Progressive ideology dictates who will win and who will lose; who will acquire wealth and who will live just above poverty, all according to an oligarchical elites’ idea of what is fair, what is not and who is worthy.

Under a Progressive economic system, opportunity is dead and the American Dream, but for those chosen by the Progressive masters, swings from a rope off a branch of a socially engineered (read: Socialist) tree, long-standing on the Progressive plantation.

“Not houses finely roofed or the stones of walls well builded, nay nor canals and dockyards make the city, but men able to use their opportunity.” – Alcaeus

In Deep With Michelle Ray – You Can’t Build That

When: Thursday, February 7th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Join me and @AiPolitics, host of the CDN Radio show “Married to the Game“, to discuss the barriers to entrepreneurs and the changes in perception of small business in the information age. And, whatever else we manage to get into.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Happy New Year America?

Happy New Year America ?

This will print the day before the most holy day in the lives of all football freaks and parade aficionados alike. NEW YEARS! You know, the ROSE BOWL and the ROSE Parade usher in a new year of, well, wait, let’s finish 2012. I don’t want to get ahead of myself.

By the end of 2012, I will have completed almost 250 shows, written more or less 100 columns or blog posts, and wolfed down about 80 hot dogs from Wienerschnitzel.

I will have seen our economy flat lined at under 2%(GDP) and our REAL unemployment rate hanging in at 14.6% (BLS u6 stats). This doesn’t account for the countless Americans who are taking jobs earning considerably less than they were making, NOT to mention MILLIONS of Americans who just gave up.

One out of every 4 houses in major metropolitan areas in foreclosure. The U.S. credit rating has dropped for the first time in FOREVER! Our deficient has tripled in 4 short years. Millions of Americans are living on food stamps and almost 46 million more are living under the poverty level. Americans are giving up… something is not right.

The person who does not work and who receives government assistance often makes more money than a median income person. How is this possible that a person who is receiving public assistance still gets services in amounting to over $40,000 a year? When you add up what they receive in food stamps, Medicaid services, and cash assistance, it adds up to over $40,000 to $50,000 a year!! Is anyone wondering why so many don’t want to work? A person who makes $33,000 to $40,000 a year only really sees $19,000 to $24,000 dollars a year after taxes. However when you go for services you are told that you “make too much”. You don’t make enough money to survive, but you make too much to receive services. You can barely make ends meet. Why bother getting up every day to go to a job that pays so little when you can make more with government assistance?
So to beat poverty you simply need to go on government aid. How do we move forward when things are this backward?! Wouldn’t it be better for government to encourage people to take on ANY job and assist them a little bit if needed to bridge the gap?

Thousands of businesses are closing down. Between the economy, taxes, health care mandates, and out of control regulation, it’s just too hard to be a business owner and survive, let alone succeed.

We can’t drill for oil. Manufacturing plants can’t open because we can’t import needed metals because of regulations. We are living in a global economy and are regulating ourselves out of business. Case in point: It’s cheaper and easier to build the Volt battery in Taiwan than in America (where our President says we need to be more green friendly). So he loaned GM money to build the Volt to save the car industry and further green energy, essentially putting many of GM’s workers out of a job (in the middle of a recession), bankrupting many GM re-investors and sending the green battery manufacturing services to Taiwan. Yup, makes sense to me! NOT!

The President said earlier this year, “Small business is doing well.” REALLY? Which small businesses was he speaking of? Look at the local strip malls and commercial industrial areas. So many are EMPTY! Bankruptcy is up with small business owners. Yup, it must be backwards YEAR!

And the cliff is in sight no matter what they agree on. But 2013 can’t get any worse… REALLY? Many economists say that there is another recession coming in 2013, maybe even a depression!

Current GDP is at a level that can’t even sustain the recession we are in now. (Yes, we ARE still in a recession.) We are extremely dependent on Europe’s economy. As of November, Greece alone has over 11 million people and ONLY 4.7 million are working. They need to borrow $30+ billion to pay their bills (retired people) for the next few months until a permanent plan can be worked out. Sounds like they are taking lesson from our legislators. Oh, and Japan, who we rely on heavily, has government debt that is 230% of its GDP!

Here at home, the foreclosure problem has only just begun. Banks have been holding back, just you wait!

Rising health care costs, stronger regulations, more stringent oil drilling regulations, more foreclosures looming, and a severe shortage of jobs … Happy New Year?

Obama to implement economy-crushing coal regulations after election

WASHINGTON, NOV. 5, 2012 – On September 22, 2011, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, held a hearing with one witness, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lisa P. Jackson, on regulatory reform. At the hearing Stearns predicted that President Obama would not push through controversial environmental regulations before the 2012 election. As Stearns stated then, “issuing such a rule would cause [Obama] severe electoral problems in the next election.” Today, the Washington Times is running a story* on Obama halting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for a “political split second” before tomorrow’s election and then imposing massive coal regulations after the election.

As chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Stearns held a hearing on the EPA’s plans to impose severe regulations on coal development, transportation, and use that would harm the coal industry, cost thousands of jobs, and limit domestic energy production. In response to Stearns’ oversight and the lack of economic growth and job creation, the Obama Administration and the EPA withdrew its regulatory plan. With the election ending tomorrow, the White House and the EPA are preparing anti-coal regulations that are expected to be released at the end of November.

Added Stearns, “According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, regulations cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion each year. The looming regulatory burdens at the center of President Obama’s agenda contribute toward the broad uncertainty that prevents economic growth and job creation. I’m proud of my role in exposing the cost of these regulatory schemes, but I cannot be heartened by my prescientprediction that the 2012 election only would delay temporarily these new coal regulations.”

Justice Scalia: Guns Can Be “Regulated”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a chill through the spines of conservatives with a foreboding warning about the government’s power to “regulate” what he referred to as “menacing” hand-held weapons.

Scalia’s comments elicited a furor at the website National Journal, where many weighed in to register their disgust at the possibility of another “conservative” justice betrayal. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts  appeared poised to strike down the individual mandate of the Obamacare legislation in late June 2012, but apparently sided with the liberal wing at the last moment.

Appearing in an interview given by Mike Wallace that is to be aired on Fox News Sunday, the originalist stalwart had the following comments:

[Whether or not government can ban high volume magazines and “assault” weapons] will have to be decided in future cases… But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried.

Several commenters at National Journal rightly rebutted Scalia’s opinion by pointing out the subjective nature of basing law on what liberals perceive as “frightening” or “menacing,” including hand-held weapons. There were other causes for concern with Justice Scalia’s comments.

Instead of basing his reasoning on inalienable individual rights, such as the rights to private property and self-defense, Scalia expounded on particular 18th century gun practices that preceded the ratification of The Constitution. From this exercise in historical exegesis, he leapt to the conclusion that the several states had the authority to “regulate” the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Scalia thus hedges the recent case record that the Second Amendment is incorporated and binding on the states, which was established in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago that struck down local gun control laws. That followed upon the related gun control case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which also struck down gun regulations.

The record of the Roberts’ course had seemed to be strong on both gun control and free speech issues before the Obamacare case debacle. Roberts’ capricious minimalism (the tendency to yield to the legislature on Constitutional interpretation)  and Scalia’s inconsistency in defending individual rights have many attentive citizens alarmed that gun “regulation” could go the deleterious way of Commerce “regulation.”

Whether or not one agrees with the Constitutional amendment stating that citizens have the right to bear arms, it is empirically rock-solid that citizens’ ability to lawfully carry concealed firearms leads to a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack among the several states.

Nonetheless, the massacre at an Aurora, Colorado theater, a gun-free zone, has given rise to increasingly vocal calls for gun regulations by the Democrat Party. The party even had the audacity to try to slip assault weapons-related gun regulations into an upcoming “cybersecurity” bill, probably after recognizing that the U.S. would not become a party to the UN’s small arms treaty.

Please share this article if you want to alert your fellow citizens about the assaults being made on the Second Amendment!

Majority of Americans Support Reforms to Federal Regulatory Process

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2012  — The American public, by a solid majority, is open and receptive to reforming the federal regulatory process, according to results released today from a nationwide survey conducted last month. The survey, sponsored by the National Federation of Independent Business’ (NFIB) Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations campaign, finds overwhelming public support for five concrete and commonsense reforms that the Obama Administration could implement immediately.  In survey after survey, small businesses across the country have cited regulations as an obstacle to growth and hiring.

“The small-business owners and operators who are the nation’s principal job creators have earned a seat at the table as we look for public policy solutions to grow the economy and put people back to work,” said former U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln, chairwoman of Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations. “Our polling confirms that the public, by clear majorities, believes that the regulatory reforms small businesses are calling for are both reasonable and long overdue.  To ensure a competitive economy, we must reform the regulatory process and remove these roadblocks to growth.”

“The small-business community is one of the most trusted and respected in America,” said NFIB CEO Dan Danner. “The data in this poll is the latest evidence showing how strongly the American people feel about allowing entrepreneurs to have the freedom to make their own decisions about what’s best for their businesses.”

Among the key findings in a nationwide survey conducted for NFIB’s Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations:

  • 74% believe that 4,200 federal regulations in the pipeline are too many
  • 71% have an unfavorable view of the 224 economically significant rules issued last year
  • 63% believe the rules issued by the federal government have done more to hurt than help small businesses
  • 74% believe the federal government should focus on creating jobs instead of issuing new rules and regulations

“The public clearly supports bringing balance to the regulatory system and ensuring that more voices, more accountability, and more commonsense discussion takes place before costly regulations are pursued,” said Senator Lincoln.

Last November, NFIB President Dan Danner and Sen. Lincoln sent a letter to President Obama outlining five principles for regulatory reform and calling for immediate action by the Administration to protect small business’ ability to grow and create jobs. NFIB’s research confirms that Americans, by a large margin, support the reforms to the regulatory system sent to President Obama:

  • 90% favor requiring government agencies, like the EPA and OSHA to work with small businesses to help them comply with new rules instead of fining them for first-time violations
  • 82% favor increasing the transparency and accountability in the federal regulatory process by having independent review
  • 85% favor requiring that all new regulations are designed to have the least possible burden on the economy
  • 81% favor requiring that any small businesses subject to a new rule have input in the design of the regulation
  • 81% favor requiring that regulatory actions are based on objective data and hard science

“It’s relatively rare to find 80%-90% support for a specific reform, but in this case, our polling shows that all five planks of Small Business for Sensible Regulations’ reform plan enjoy overwhelming public support,” said Brenda Wigger, pollster of Voter Consumer Research. “The public clearly sees government regulations as a roadblock to job creation.”

HR 2977 – The Epitome of the Socialist Mentality

‘Tis the season to be jolly, and if you are Congress, it is also the season to stuff as many pet projects into the next omnibus spending bill as you possibly can. Of course they seem to do this 365 days a year. There is one measure, however, lurking in the recessed corners of Capitol Hill that, I believe, is the very embodiment of a philosophy that has damaged or destroyed many of the great countries of the past. It is the “I know what’s best for you” mentality. When it’s your parents talking to you this way, it’s called life. When it’s your government talking to you this way, it’s called socialism.

Meet House Bill 2977. On the surface this only seems to be a benign attempt to introduce a dollar coin into the American currency. After all, the previous three attempts: the Susan B. Anthony coin, the Sacajawea coin and of course the recently terminated presidential coin have been such raging successes, right? Folks that are my age and older can remember how the Susan B Anthony’s were often confused with quarters and, to be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Sacajawea or presidential coin, other than the old Eisenhower. These endeavors were always sold as a deficit reducing measure because, after all, coins last much longer than dollar bills. There’s only one problem – WE DON’T WANT THE DAMN THINGS!!

But of course Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that once again the best thing for all of us is to lug around pounds of dollar coins in lieu of the flimsy bill. What is different this time, is the fact that this will not be a voluntary act. HR 2977 calls for the mandated change from a paper dollar to a coin. In other words, you’re getting them whether you like them are not!

HR 2977 was created as one of the many genius deficit reducing plans given forth by that counsel of legends – the super-committee. You remember the super-committee don’t you? Twelve of the most partisan people in Washington stuffed together in a room trying to agree on what to order for lunch.  Having that fail miserably didn’t exactly instill a lot of confidence in me that this all-star group would be able to come to an agreement on deficit reduction. Of course, we all know that the super committee died an infamous death, it’s body still rotting in the open. Yet HR 2977 managed to stay alive, hiding out in the basement of government stupidity, waiting for its chance to shine in the wee hours of the morning while no one is watching. This is the only way a bill like this will ever pass, because if the American public got hold of the notion that there currency was being changed by mandate, they would have a collective conniption fit!

This is much more than just having the extra burden (pun intended) on the American people. It shows once again that our current group of lawmakers has no actual clue as to how our economy really works. It makes you wonder if any of them (all of which are 1%-ers by the way) have the first clue as to what a regulation like this will do to small businesses. For example, what if you owned a Laundromat? Perhaps your company supplies vending machines or cash recognition machines or video-game machines. Will Congress cover the thousands of dollars it will cost these businesses to comply with this new set of regulations? This is a rhetorical question folks, please don’t fracture your head trying to think about it!

Of course not! People who prefer symbolism over real substance never think this far into the future. They just want to publicity that goes along with them proclaiming to the unwashed masses that they have reduced their deficit! Reducing our freedom to choose, and in this case reject, something as fundamental to a society as the appearance of currency, doesn’t seem to be nearly as important as getting those cameras trained on you so that you can tell everyone that you worked hard into the night to reduce the national debt.

You can’t swing a dead cat in Washington DC without hearing some politician give a sound bite about how important the small business owner is to the engine of our economy. Yet at the same time, they don’t have the first clue how that engine really works. If they did, they wouldn’t even consider a bill like 2977, much less pass it.

The last thing they want is a proposal like this to reach the light of day before it is passed in the dark of night. So in keeping with previous American terrorists like George Washington, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson, I am proud to scream about this at the top of my lungs!

Let’s think about what this is going to do to small businesses.  If it is indeed passed, we already know from previous experiences that the American public will simply not tolerate a dollar coin, especially when it is being forced upon them. But this won’t stop another unfunded mandate from being dumped on the small business owner. Of course, in order for the small business owner to stay in compliance and continue to be a law-abiding businessperson, they will have to comply with the new regulations regardless of the cost. Then, when it is repealed over the outcry, these same business owners will have to pay again to convert back.

A useless regulation, an uproar, and thousands of dollars out of the pocket of the true engineers of our economic train – this will be the legacy of HR 2977. That and the fact that this is yet another testimony to the arrogance of those on Capitol Hill and in the White House who think they can run our lives better than we can.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can guarantee one thing – that the supporters of Paul will always vote for you. It’s bad enough that we seem to have crossed a line whereby there are more voters, or at least potential voters, that are on Paul’s side. This is usually when, as Alexis De Tocqueville said, a democratic society realizes it can vote itself billions of dollars out of the public till. Unfortunately, this is going to continue as long as we have a majority of people who are perfectly willing to have a top-down, nanny state, “take your medicine like good boys and girls” society.

If you’re frustrated as hell like I am about this, I suggest you sit down and write a letter, pick up the phone or at least shoot an e-mail to your representative and senators. Let them know that not every person in America has been anesthetized and some of them are still ready to fight for the country that was given to them. Let them know that silly measures like HR 2977 are completely and totally unacceptable and that our memories of things like this will last well past November 6, 2012.

Three Bills for One Tragedy – Penn State & California-style Solutions

By now the tragic, shocking events that transpired at Penn State are common public knowledge.  Ex-assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was re-arrested last week on new charges of child molestation.  That brings the charges against him up to more than 50 counts.  Longtime coach Joe Paterno lost his job as the investigation continues.  The entire scandal from top to bottom is enough to make this mother two young children weep.  It is heartbreaking, infuriating and disturbing.

Naturally, when a story like this comes to light many people begin to ask the question, “How did this happen? What can be done to make sure it never happens again?”  A worthy question and one that not only the entire Penn State community will have to address, but also educational institutions across the country.  Here in California the question has been posed quite publicly.  The answer?  Why, more bills of course!  CA Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) will introduce a bill that would require all athletic organizations to provide employees with training on how to identify and report child abuse.  That doesn’t sound so crazy, does it?  Not necessarily, but consider this: last month two separate California representatives, Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) and state Sen. Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) put forward two separate bills that would also require employees of universities and colleges to report suspected cases of child abuse to law enforcement.  That’s not all…Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has introduced similar legislation in D.C.   Why on earth would three different state politicians propose three different bills that cover the same issue?  Is it because they think 3 times the bills = 1.9 times the caring (I used government math for that one)?

Politics is big business in the state of California.  Besides a salary that averages $113, 000/year and a $162/day per diem (year round, don’t forget), politicians also earn big money with book deals and on the speaking circuit.  How do you become someone others will want to pay to speak at their fundraiser dinners and company retreats?  You pass a bill that has your name on it.  The more sensational, the better.  The Smith-Jones Human Waste bill or Jones-Smith Cat Leash bill simply aren’t exciting enough.  No one is moved (forgive the pun) by bills that deal with human waste and taking cats for walks, as an example ( by the way, these are not real bills…yet.  In Califorina-stan anything is possible when you have a full-time legislature run solely and completely by Democrats).  What you want as a politician is a bill that catches the eye, that speaks to emotions and very real public fears.  You want a bill that proports to solve a problem publicly and definitively, something you can speak about around the country.  You want a bill that identifies you as a public crusader.  It has little to do with content and public safety and everything to do with pride and money.

I understand people want to know that nothing like what happened at Penn State will ever happen again.  I don’t suggest that it is a poor idea to ask educational institutions to train their employees and talk about how to handle (God forbid) such situations, should they ever arise.  I am just like you, dear reader – disgusted and heartbroken at the selfish employees at Penn State who allowed young boys, children to be raped and molested right under their noses for years.  We have laws to deal with such heinous crimes.  But what is needed here is not more laws.  Our nation is drowning in legislation, much of it redundant.  With each new public tragedy there come more and more cries for better laws, stricter laws, updated laws, more specific laws.  There are so many laws on the books to be broken that our jails and prisons are overflowing with petty criminals, causing more violent offenders to be released early to create more room (that’s happening here in California thanks to…another law!)  Its natural to want to prevent more tragedy, but at what cost? In California Governor Jerry Brown has more than 600 bills on his desk awaiting approval before the end of the year.  They range from tighter helmet laws to school athletic awards.  The gridlock in Sacramento makes Washington look like amateurs. We don’t need to legislate common sense.  The national out-cry in response to the Penn State scandal proves that most Americans get that not reporting child abuse is wrong.  Do we really need more laws – THREE separate laws – to confirm that sentiment?

Every tragedy does not require a new law.  Our society would grind to a halt if every terrible accident or event resulted in a new law being passed.  What happened in Pennsylvania was outrageous.  The prepatrator is going to jail, hopefully forever.  Writing new, vague laws that most likely will end up creating even more fraud and trapping individuals in compliance loopholes will not make our kids safer. Just imagine the things that would be reported to the authorities under these new laws.  Every pat on the back, warm squeeze or lingering look could be reported by school employees terrified of prosecution if real allegations are ever proven; not to mention child molesting is a very serious charge and the simple suggestion of it can ruin an innocent person’s life forever.  Its too risky. Look at what’s become of sexual harassment laws in the workplace or the zero-tolerance policies in public schools.  We now have children being suspended for kissing or calling their teachers “cute”.  Why wouldn’t a new law governing issues of sexuality and molestation in higher education turn into the same fiasco?

I too want to ensure this never happens again but adding 3 more bills to the Governor’s desk is not going to change anything for the boys whose lives were destroyed by Sandusky.  We don’t need better laws.  We just need better people…and that subject is a longer post for a different day.