Can Democrats and Republicans Agree on anything?

The impasse in Washington is as strong as ever. Democrats stand for helping the poor and unfortunate and curtailing the excesses of commercialism, whereas Republicans stand for encouraging private enterprise and increasing individual wealth. But enough of that – we all know it.

There is one area, in my opinion, that can be a bridge of peace between the two parties. That is the field of government regulation. Republicans hate regulation and Democrats feel it is essential to prevent runaway capitalism, such as the housing fiasco. So where could we meet in the middle?

Here's an idea which I would like to share with you. I agree with the Democrats that regulation is essential as there are too many people who will do anything to make money. I agree with the Republicans that regulations are onerous, time-consuming, and stifle enterprise.

Regulations are written by lawyers for lawyers and they try to plug all the possible loopholes with verbiage and multiple details. This leads to documentation which is extremely voluminous and hard to read and what's more it is full of jargon and acronyms.

No matter how detailed and carefully drafted a regulation becomes, there are teams of lawyers that can find loopholes and exploit them. Large corporations hire such teams and they have been quite successful in finding loopholes. Individuals are saddled with the same regulations but do not have the resources to exploit them. What's more, many regulations are counterintuitive and – dare I say – plain stupid. I refer the reader to a fine book entitled "The Death of Common Sense" by Philip Howard, an Atlanta attorney, for discrete examples of such stupidity.

What's more, the people who design and distribute regulations seem to have forgotten that ordinary humans have to read them and fill out forms. The regulations that I have seen in the health field epitomize this problem. Acres of singlespaced fine print interspersed with blocks to fill in, multiple pages requiring full personal identification on each, and the like. Just the appearance of some of the forms to fill out is daunting.

It seems to me that this is one problem that could be worked on by both sides and the result would be favorable to big business and to small business alike. There is plenty of talent in this country and it is waiting to be tapped. Here is a great spot to begin.

For example, my suggestion would be gradually to do away with regulations and forms and substitute regulation by humans instead. I know, I know. Humans can be arbitrary, selfish and capricious if not downright dishonest and we don't want people like that regulating us. So here's an idea to mull over: yes, have regulators who watch over what we all do and check to be sure that we are not breaking the law or going against the best interests of society. But not regulators who intimidate and are power-hungry and intransigent. How to do that?

Criminologists tell us that the best deterrent to crime is not the severity of punishment but the likelihood of getting caught. What's more, the current climate of regulation seems to be "gotcha" when a law is broken or a regulation flouted. To me, that is counterproductive. I would like to see regulators have the ability and skill to carefully monitor the enterprise to which they are assigned and when they find a deviation or a tendency to act against laws or the good of society issue a simple and nonthreatening warning: "this is not something you should be doing. Please stop it."; then they continue watching and if the activity is not stopped they issue a somewhat more ominous "you are still doing it and you are going to be in trouble if you continue it".

At this point, the regulator notifies a superior body of what is going on rather than taking any individual action himself and the superior body then, being aware, is prepared to take an action. This will eliminate individual insolence and hubris because the regulator does not have the power to punish but only to observe and warn. but of course the regulator's warnings are based on specific laws or the intent of legislation as interpreted by his superiors and by the Congress.

Of course, this is a very crude and inchoate beginning to the discussion but I want to get opinions from those better prepared to deal with the question than I so please contribute!