June Cleaver on Federal Regulation

The first thing on my mind is the EPA's new video contest entitled "Rulemaking Matters!" Participants are encouraged to submit a video that "highlights the importance of federal regulations and motivates others to participate in the rulemaking process." As we watched the youtube video introducing the contest, Neil and I about laughed ourselves off the couch. I kept looking for a Dharma Initiative uniform (from the TV series Lost) or some video-feed circa 1950 of June Cleaver explaining how forward-thinking, media-savvy the contest is. June might even remind us how federal regulation touches "almost every aspect" of our lives and that we can take part in that exciting process. The video contest has an introduction video on youtube. You can search "EPA Rulemaking Matters".

The EPA's contest says, "We'll provide the facts. You provide the creativity!" The EPA just rolled out a new website called regulation.gov; among other things, the intent of this video contest is to drive traffic to their website. Each video must give a shout out to this link to be considered for the grand prize.

The EPA spokeswoman gives the example of the Cash for Clunkers program that allowed so many people to trade in their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars. She explains that Congress created the law and then authorized the federal agency, in this case something to do with Highways and Transportation, which falls under the Executive branch umbrella, to create the actual program, with it's rules and regulations.

I wonder when everyone was rushing in to buy new cars on this specific weekend, was reducing their carbon footprint the catalyst for their decision? If the financial benefits had not been provided by the govt, would the people have rushed to be more eco-friendly? Not likely.

I was pretty certain the entire program was designed to stimulate the economy, to infuse money into the failing auto industry. Maybe the federal govt used the automakers' financial need to forward their own eco-agenda or to increase their reach into citizens' personal decisions as they mandated what kind of cars people could buy.

Either way, the question is not whether people need to be convinced as to the extent of federal regulation in their lives, but rather that their voice matters in the formation of those rules. Maybe the govt is right-we do need to see what's on their website to see how to make a difference. Unless there is a specific and meaningful way the private citizens' comments and suggestions are considered, their "involvement" in the process will amount to nothing more than an opportunity for the govt to say that they considered our opinions, that we are part of the solution, to push some of the ownership of these programs onto our backs rather than their own. Is it feasible that our input on the implementation of the health care overhaul will be considered if it is contrary to the agenda and ideals of those who passed it into law?

Unfortunately for me, I need to see their website to see what kind of a voice we have.