Walter E. Williams, a republican commentator, recently posted an article listing a bunch of them. You can read them here. But one thing Walter E. Williams did not seem to realize - ALL THE REGULATIONS/LAWS HE MENTIONED ARE STATE LAWS, NONE ARE FEDERAL.
The best example he gave was of an inter-state trucker trying to get into in-state trucking. There were all these state laws he had to overcome.
The problem with the GOP is that they just don't realize that Federal Government is BETTER than state governments.
- It draws from a larger pool of talent, so Federal employees are smarter and more ethical. A Congressional district may have 2 really great politicians in it, even if that same district has to send 4 people to a State House of Representatives, along with a Congressman to Washington.
- There is a bigger spotlight on federal laws then on state ones. When a city like Chicago passes a law to make it illegal to cross the street on the south side of an intersection, it gets reported on by the Chicago Tribune (a fairly good newspaper) and local TV stations. Federal laws get reported on by the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, the New York Times, the CNN, FOX News, etc. etc.
- Local areas can easily be dominated by one political party, effectively dis-enfranchising 30-40% of the population, but this is harder to do on a national scale.
- A national lobbyist can come in and overpower a local one over a local issue, but this is harder to do with national issues. They can do this with skill, not just money.
- Similarly, a low amount of money can effectively buy an election for a local issue, but honestly for federal issues, the amount of cash it takes to buy an issue on the national stage is simply excessive (Studies show that to get a 1% change in popular support, you need to double the amount of money spent. A nationally funded group can probably double the current spending for a local issue about 4-5 times (4 doublings = x16 original cost) You can't do that for a national issue.
- The Federal Government has Constitutional restrictions on what they can do. States and local governments usually have a lot less restrictions For example, the Federal Government has no legal authority to tell you what color you can paint your house. But some cities claim that right
- Important things that we KNOW are right get done at the Federal level, leaving less important things for the states to decide. A key example is Slavery. We know it is wrong, so (eventually) we passed a federal law about it, instead of leaving it up to the states. Same thing for Murder - we don't let a state say "murder is OK", because it is important and we know it is wrong. The states tend to deal with concepts and ideas that are either new and untested, or just plain controversial.
As a general rule, Federal laws and regulations are created by smarter, more ethical people, with more transparency, with greater concessions to their opponents, without outside interference, and with higher goals in mind. State laws are sometimes (not always), created by crooked idiots, in a back room, to spite their opponents, with outsiders calling the shots, over anything they feel like it.
State laws require licenses for Barbers, Federal Laws require licenses for Doctors. Federal laws prevents discrimination against housing the handicapped, State law limits how many people may occupy the building (sometimes in an underhanded attempt to negate the Federal handicapped protections).
See the difference?
So yes, we need to get rid of a bunch of state/local rules/regulations/laws. But Federal government does not have that same problem. Yes, there are some bad federal rules/regulations/laws. But they are few and far between When I get upset about government interfering in my life/business it is almost always a local law that is causing the problem.
Anyone that does not see obvious fact should stay in local politics and out of national politics. We don't need to let the Peter Principle work in government.