FatCratz

Government employee asked to show immigration papers...

The head of our Customs and Border Protection agency, Alan D. Bersin, claims he didn't know he was required to complete and retain an I-9 form for the 10 household employees he has hired since 1993, as required by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (which shares enforcement responsibilities with the agency he heads).

As GovExec points out, this raises questions about his credibility and truthfulness, especially since he appears to have accepted the recess appointment after he knew he was in technical violation of the law. I for one am willing to stipulate that Bersin is sincere and followed the letter of the law as he knew it for the last 17 years. His credibility is no more in doubt than any other head of a federal agency.

The bigger problem here is that there is a five-page form that all U.S. employers must complete for all persons they hire, and the person qualified to head the enforcing agency didn't know it existed until he was being confirmed to head said agency. In other words, we have a system of regulation and taxation so complex that the people enforcing it don't even understand it until they have to massage their non-compliance so they can get the job of ensuring that we comply. See Geithner, Tim (IRS); and Daschle, Tom (HHS). 

I'm sympathetic to the fact that the rigors of our confirmation process almost by definition are set up to exclude virtually all qualified candidates. But what about the rest of us? If they can't follow the law, why should we? This is what the Tea Party movement means when they say our government is too big and intrusive.

Government Vs. Business

John Steele Gordon has a great piece on the differences between government and business, which gives seven reasons why government can't run a business. It's a brilliant summary of the public vs. private sector contrast that is the heart and soul of this blog. Well worth reading.

I have two favorites. First, government is a monopoly, and virtually never faces competition, thus voiding the most powerful force driving capitalism toward greater efficiency. Second, Government is regulated by government:

When "postalization" of the nation's phone system appeared imminent in 1917, Theodore Vail, the president of AT&T, admitted that his company was, effectively, a monopoly. But he noted that "all monopolies should be regulated. Government ownership would be an unregulated monopoly."

It is government's job to make and enforce the rules that allow a civilized society to flourish. But it has a dismal record of regulating itself.

Another great tidbit from this piece, for which I couldn't find the source:

In 1913, for instance, thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged. When the plant was finally finished, however -- three years after World War I had ended -- it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen.

"Feds Waking Up To Nightmare Of Bedbugs"

When I first saw this story, I thought I had to link to it simply because the headline was so funny.

Faced with rising numbers of complaints to city information lines and increasingly frustrated landlords, hotel chains and housing authorities, the Environmental Protection Agency is hosting its first-ever bed bug summit on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Then when I read the above paragraph, I figured as a bonus I could talk about the intrusive nanny state. What on earth does the federal government have to do with keeping bugs out of my bed?

At this point, I considered and passed on numerous bad jokes about NSA and warrantless wiretapping.

Finally, I realized I had a true FatCratz trifecta. It seems that one of the leading causes of the bedbug resurgence is... government regulation:

The EPA, out of concern for the environment and the effects on public health, has pulled many of the chemicals that were most effective in eradicating the bugs from the U.S. over the last 50 years - such as DDT - off of shelves.