In the Agora: One Cheer for Mitch

« Grumpy in Paris | Main | Silly Gauls »

May 05, 2007

One Cheer for Mitch

During this year's legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly passed SEA 490, a bill familiar in spirit in far too many States: it provides for the registration of interior designers, who were to join a list of protected professions that includes dry cleaners, dietitians, and hypnotists. Sadly, our ignoble legislators passed this bill by 44-5 in the Senate and 62-34 in the House. (Hardly surprising considering how diffuse the costs are and how concentrated the benefits among the interested parties.) These sorts of things happen routinely throughout the country.

It was a pleasant surprise to find one politician standing up to such rent-seeking. Governor Mitch Daniels vetoed the legislation, and his second and longest veto message to the General Assembly this year is articulate and, dare I say, stirring. It reads in part:

I can find no compelling public interest that is served by the establishment of new registration requirements for interior designers as contained in SEA 490, nor in the bill's effective "criminalization" of violations of such registration requirements. Indeed, it seems to me that the principal effect of SEA 490 will be to restrain competition and limit new entrants into the occupation by requiring that they meet new educational and experience qualifications previously not necessary to practice their trade.

He goes on to cite a recent George Will article on similar legislation in Nevada and Utah. (One could also look to Bill Richardson's efforts in New Mexico.)

But he doesn't stop there. This isn't just about interior design:

SEA 490 is an example of government intrusion into the private marketplace, unnecessarily expanding the power and reach of a professional regulatory board (of which we have too many already), and protecting the "ins" at the expense of would-be competitors. The marketplace already serves as an effective check on poor performance; designers doing poor work are more likely to be penalized by negative customer reaction than by a government agency trying to enforce arbitrary and subjective qualification standards.

Interior designers are hardly the only profession seeking protection from state government. Indiana already regulates some 74 professions, many of them dubiously under the criteria articulated above. I am writing at such length to make plain to the General Assembly my concerns about this trend and my deep skepticism about the merits and value of many of these efforts. Indeed, I would welcome legislative re-examination of existing licensing schemes far more than proposals for more such regulation as Senate Enrolled Act 490.

Wow! How refreshing to hear a politician, especially in the face of such opposition, to clearly lay out the proper scope of government (though his detractors might say he, um, rather underappreciates its necessity in other areas, this is clearly not one of them).

via Doug Masson, who, as usual, has much more. More about this trend among interior designers can be found at the Institute for Justice.

Posted by Zach Wendling at May 5, 2007 05:29 PM

Comments

This was a heartening and uplifting post.

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at May 6, 2007 09:43 AM | permalink

Interior Designers (unlike decorators, but like architects and structural engineers) are capable of performing structural changes to buildings. They don't just paint walls and rearrange furniture. There is a public interest in their shingle being regulated. Chiefly that ceilings don't cave in on people because the decorator goofed and took out load bearing elements without redistributing its forces.

Posted by: moniker at May 6, 2007 06:37 PM | permalink

Moniker,
Do you mean suggesting, recommending, or planning for a load bearing walls be removed?
'Performing' seems to be a bit loose. The work would be contracted out to a party responsible for rebuilding the structure to code (where the government already has regulations), ensuring the safety of the inhabitants.

Posted by: JP at May 6, 2007 07:46 PM | permalink

Also, what would have become IC 25-4.5-1-6(a) (see the link to the bill in the original post) makes it clear that "interior design" only includes changes to elements or components that "(1) are not load bearing or do not assist in the seismic design of a building; (2) do not require design computations for the structure of a building; and (3) do not include the structural frame system supporting a building." It also does not appear to include the making of the changes themselves, which would require either a license for architecture or engineering or, as JP said, the use of contractors who are appropriately licensed.

Posted by: Karl at May 6, 2007 08:41 PM | permalink

The ultimate rent-seeking in my book is copyright and patents as they exist today.

Microsoft makes its money on government welfare, as its source code is protected with the government jackboot for no additional free.

Posted by: Dave S. at May 6, 2007 09:50 PM | permalink

I must have overlooked that section, Karl. Thank you. It seems rather odd, actually, since ASID harps on the fact that the only real difference between ID and Architecture is the date the projects start. Interior Designers are trained so they can change building envelopes, structural elements, etc., they just start after the building is up. Since ASID would be the main group lobbying for this I would have expected environmental and building loads to have been the main justification with as many weasle words as politics required.

Posted by: moniker at May 9, 2007 03:16 PM | permalink