Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. letter to D. F. S., August 1, 1995

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR. Congress of tJje fSlniteb States $оибе of ftepregentattoeg ©BaSfjington, ©C 20515-2002 August 1, 1995 Dear Thank you for your letter regarding my recent column in the Harford Impulse. I appreciate your comments, and I will attempt to answer those concerns which seem foremost in your mind. “Stupid, outdated, and fundamentally flawed” regulations are the product of laws which sound good in theory, but have proven to be unworkable in practice or application. While many laws might have made sense when they were originally conceived or passed, they frequently become needless burdens to businesses, families, and communities. I have no doubt that a majority of bureaucrats and legislators have the best intentions when they suggest regulations, but it is the responsibility of those in Congress to review and periodically revise these regulations. To suggest that regulations should be immune from such oversight is a shortsighted proposition. It is true that small business owners have the ability to participate in a public comment session after proposed regulations are drafted. Many business owners, however, know little about this procedure, nor do they have extra time to lobby against measures which they oppose. For those reasons, this Congress has determined that business owners, local organizations, and other concerned citizens should also have the right to petition Congress directly for statutory repeal or revision. “Corrections Day” is an idea whose time has come, and I look forward to helping the small business community flourish in an environment of limited and prioritized regulation. I have always believed in the importance of local decision-making. This philosophy is supported by most Americans, since polls consistently show that citizens rank their local governments as more effective and trustworthy than state and federal governments. The government closest to the people is more likely to know a community’s needs than a remote Washington bureaucracy. Local governments must be trusted to do the right thing; otherwise, the federal government will most likely impose a solution that, in practice, is wrong and illogical. I also disagree with your proposition that special interests are necessarily more powerful at the local level of government. There is a difference between a special interest and a community-based organization working to protect its practical, day-to-day interests. Finally, I would like to address your claim that my efforts have “unfairly stigmatize[d] all federal employees.” On the contrary, fairness is at the core of the “Corrections Day” proposal. I am confident “Corrections Day” will help restore a sense of balance to the twin priorities of individual freedom and responsible regulation. As taxpayers, federal employees share the burden of illogical and costly bureaucratic regulation.