How would you like to triple your income without doing any extra work? Sound good? It's doable! A decade-old study that received too little attention convincingly confirms what many of us were already certain of. It's as simple as removing the regulatory burdens that the government imposes. In 2006, the U.S. had the third freest economy globally, behind only Hong Kong and Singapore. The 2007-08 housing bubble led to the beginning of increased regulation, which has dropped the U.S. from third to twenty-sixth. This over-regulation is a continuation of a trend that began during the great depression. This increasing regulation has led to lower per capita GDP growth, resulting in a decline in the standard of living for every American. How is this possible? Whenever the government imposes regulations, it forces those affected to respond. They do so in at least four ways: they could comply, seek out exceptions, take legal action, or skirt the regulation in ways that encourage greater regulation to contain them. Simply complying seems to solve the problem, but not so fast—every regulation imposes a cost on the affected. For example, complying with new requirements may require the business or individual to spend time and money. Probably more time is spent on paperwork and updating record-keeping procedures. Therefore, they may seek exceptions by appealing the regulation as it applies to them or lobbying higher authorities to present their case. They might decide to take legal action and challenge the regulation in court, and we know how expensive that can be. They may skirt the regulation by finding loopholes and employing methods that are difficult to police. The cost of regulations might seem relatively low to an individual, but when spread across millions of people, its effect on GDP is substantial. However, the cost to a company is likely much higher. Companies affected by regulations will probably need to hire lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists. Who will pay for that? The consumer. The company passes any increased costs on to the consumer. This substantial cost, when multiplied across numerous companies and consumers, has a significant impact on the economy. For more information, please see my previous article: 'Taxing Corporations'. A study published in the Journal of Economic Growth, 'Federal Regulation and Aggregate Economic Growth,' by Dawson and Seater, provides concrete evidence of the adverse and substantial effect of regulations on national economic output growth rates. Over the past three-quarters of a century, federal regulations have reduced real output growth by approximately two percent per year. This reduction in the growth rate has led to an accumulated decline in GDP of approximately 76.1 trillion as of the end of 2024. That is, GDP at the end of 2024 would have been 99.11 trillion instead of 23.0 trillion if regulation had remained at its 1949 level. This loss means that government regulations have reduced per capita GDP, which correlates with the average income, from $289,943.40 annually to $67,298.38 annually. Without those regulations, our average incomes could be over four times higher (I used triple in the title to be on the safe side). Now, to be sure, some regulations are necessary, but many are not. Where is the evidence that we are getting our money's worth? Here's a recent example: since March 2024, CFR § 1030.10, Microwave Ovens, requires that new countertop microwaves have child-resistant doors, meaning they must have two distinct actions to open. You can read it here, 'CFR § 1030.10'. Trying to keep children safe is a reasonable idea. Still, the best estimates indicate that over the twenty years from 2003 to 2023, about 1000 children under five were treated for scalds due to removing hot items from a microwave oven. However, that only represents about three percent of the scalds that hospitals treated in children during that time. Scald burns are most likely to happen at home when a child knocks over a cup of hot liquid, gets splashed by hot liquid carried by an adult, grabs a pot off the stove, or pulls on hanging tablecloths or placemats. These are far greater threats. Politicians are fond of making statements like, "isn't saving 50 children a year from getting scalded worth any price?" In short, the answer is, "No." Should every American have to pay $10,000 a year to prevent 50 children from being burned by scalding water? Of course not. How much should every American be required to pay? Since most of these scalding incidents are accidents that can only be prevented by parental supervision, and since incidents involving microwave ovens are a small percentage of those, the answer is very close to zero. Regulations of this type remind us of the phrase "Won't somebody please think of the children?" which is a frequently used, and often parodied, catchphrase associated with Helen Lovejoy, the wife of Reverend Lovejoy in the animated television show, The Simpsons. She typically cries it when residents of Springfield are debating a contentious issue or arguing, and it serves to highlight how people, politicians, often use the phrase or one like it to derail discussions or divert attention from the main point. In this case, the main point is that the world is full of things that can harm children, and the only remedy is parental attention and supervision. According to the National Institutes of Health, about three-fourths of all accidental deaths in children are the result of traffic accidents, including bicycle accidents and drowning. The NIH reports that microwave ovens cause none, unless they include some in the category of falling objects. What did this microwave oven regulation cost? It isn't easy to calculate precisely, but we can outline it. First, every company making microwave ovens had to pay lawyers to assess company responsibility. Then people had to be paid to attend the meeting to discuss the response. As discussed above, should they comply, pay lobbyists to argue for changing the law, seek exemptions, or find a way around the regulations? In this case, most of the companies decided to comply. The next step was to transfer the problem to their engineering teams to find a way to comply with minimal impact on those who have no young children. Once the engineering teams have created a design solution, the production teams have to find ways to implement the new designs. This implementation entails modifying assembly lines, installing new equipment, and retraining employees. The public relations teams must redesign the manuals that accompany the product, and the advertising teams must update the brochures and media ads that describe the product. Of course, the manufacturer must pass all of these expenses on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. This example is one of hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations passed since 1949. Were there really hundreds of thousands of problems in the last seventy-five years that needed to be solved? These regulations are the unintended consequence of elected officials having to run on records that show they have accomplished something. Every politician wants their name on as many bills as possible so they can demonstrate that they've accomplished something. These regulations reduce total economic output and its sources: physical capital, labor, and total factor productivity. The study finds that "federal regulation can explain much of the famous and famously puzzling productivity slowdown of the 1970s." The 'just do something' attitude can have counterintuitive effects. Imagine a government program that provides a 10% income boost to lower-income families, but due to its cost, increases inflation by 11%, for example, from 2.5% to 2.78%. Now, the people affected are 1% worse off because while their incomes are 10% higher, everything costs 11% more. The fact that politicians all try to make the changes they institute very hard to reverse compounds the problem.

What would it take to fix it?

• All bills expire between 5 and 25 years, depending on the scope.
• A dramatic curtailment of lobbying.
• All bills require a super-majority of 2/3 or 3/4, depending on the legislation.
• Every bill must be a single issue rather than an amalgamation of dozens or hundreds of diverse, unrelated matters. It would apply to renewing existing laws that are about to expire.

Most of these ideas are self-explanatory, but requiring super-majorities means that every bill has strong bipartisan support, and minorities of 49% are not disenfranchised. Is a problem really a problem if only half the country thinks it is? Also, curtailing lobbying is not a trivial problem. One way to stay within SCOTUS guidelines that allow political contributions as free speech is to put the regulation on the politicians. How? A law requiring that politicians refuse contributions from anyone other than a private citizen and then no more than $100 (or some other relatively small amount). This does not limit speech in that offering the money may be speech but accepting the money is listening to that speech. People have a right to free speech but they do not have a right to demand others listen. If we, the people, demand that politicians implement reforms like these, the result could be a tripling of your income as these reforms take hold. It would also result in a more harmonious and less divisive country. We deserve no less.