On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:59:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 4:27 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:45:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I don't think it's up to the average lay person to determine what laws
are enforceable and what are not. It's obvious that those who feel most
restricted or affected by a law or regulation designed for the benefit
of the whole will be bitching the most.

It is not hard to decide whether a law is enforceable by looking at
what kind of staff they will appropriate to enforce it. That is the
second shoe that will drop. Currently there is no money allocated for
enforcement.
This is "rock soup" government at it's best.
They start with a simple regulation, that is ineffective and they will
keep throwing new resources at it until it is a huge bureaucracy or
hopefully just abandon the idea.

I will not be restricted at all but I will be taxed.


Just think of how many people that extra buck a year will benefit. :-)


There are about 40 million tax payers (who actually pay) so I doubt
they will be able to do it for a buck but there are lots of stupid
programs and after a while, it ends up being lots of bucks.
The real problem is we won't actually give them the bucks, we will
bill our kids for it ... with interest or worse, just print more
money.

I haven't seen the GAO "score" on this but you can usually double
that. In this case, double the current projection won't be enough
because they have not decided how they will enforce it.
That is when the "rock soup" comes into play.
Lets say they give them $20 million for enforcement, hiring a bunch of
drone cops. Then we have a real FFA failure. They will say we just
spent $50 million on drones so we should spend $100 million more for
real planes ... rinse repeat.

Did you read my TSA post?