7 questions government agencies should ask themselves before creating any new regulation

Veronique de Rugy has a good list over at NRO's The Corner.

1. Is there a large, systemic problem that is unlikely to resolve itself in the near future?
2. Is [this] government [agency] in the best position to solve this problem?
3. Does the regulation actually address the identified systemic problem?
4. What other solutions are available?
5. Would the proposed solution give rise to other significant problems?
6. Would the preferred solution solve the problem at a reasonable cost?
7. Will the agencies be able to recognize when the problem is actually solved and eliminate the regulation when it becomes obsolete?

Annual "free" parking subsidy in US is $127 billion/year ? Yikes

Tyler Cowen in the NY Times:

it’s a classic tale of how subsidies, use restrictions, and price controls can steer an economy in wrong directions. Car owners may not want to hear this, but we have way too much free parking.

... Donald C. Shoup, professor of urban planning at [UCLA] has made this idea a cause, as presented in his 733-page book, “The High Cost of Free Parking.”

... the presence of so many parking spaces is an artifact of regulation and serves as a powerful subsidy to cars and car trips. Legally mandated parking lowers the market price of parking spaces, often to zero. ...

... Yet the law is allocating this land rather than letting market prices adjudicate whether we need more parking, and whether that parking should be free. We end up overusing land for cars — and overusing cars too. ...

As Professor Shoup wrote, “Minimum parking requirements act like a fertility drug for cars.”

... 99 percent of all automobile trips in the United States end in a free parking space, rather than a parking space with a market price. In his book, Professor Shoup estimated that the value of the free-parking subsidy to cars was at least $127 billion in 2002, and possibly much more. ...

As Professor Shoup puts it: “Who pays for free parking? Everyone but the motorist.”

Jared DeMarinis has a bad idea

Jared is director of "Candidacy and Campaign Finance" for the Maryland State Board of Elections. He and Linda Lamone seem to have plans for regulating the use social networking sites by political campaigns:

A push to pass the new rules in time for the current election cycle could place Maryland among the first in the country to oversee how campaigns use social networking sites. California and Wisconsin are considering similar measures but have faced opposition from groups that fear an infringement on First Amendment rights.

The board is to vote on the rules today, but final approval from a state legislative committee will still be required. DeMarinis says he is fast-tracking the approval process in hopes of getting the rules in place for November.

Maryland does not need more limitations on political speech.

"Breaking the Logjam: Environmental Protection That Will Work"

A new book by David Schoenbrod et al. Based on these two blurbs from Amazon, it it might be worth a look:

"Our environmental laws badly need re-thinking. This book makes that case and then charts a course for action. A straightforward, comprehensive, and persuasive case for reform."--William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1970-1973 and 1983-1985 (William D. Ruckelshaus )

"The authors remind us that a number of our environmental laws are not achieving their important goals. Breaking the Logjam documents the power of well-regulated markets to achieve significant improvements in air quality and challenges us to incorporate those lessons more broadly, hopefully provoking a valuable national discussion on these complex issues."-Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund