So, anyone who follows the U.S. news will have noticed that the new administration in Washington is following a line toward dismantling all oversight functions of the federal government. (Except, of course, in the all-important area of Uterus Inspection & Control; there is apparently scope for infinite federal oversight in that category.)
CNN covers the recent chain of events (and its implications) quite well:
As the article points out, there are a lot of things the federal government does that are not about taking away states' rights, or individuals' rights (this government has already shown that it is completely on-board with taking away individuals' rights, but that's not what I'm ranting about today). A lot of federal activities have been embarked upon because they are related to multi-state issues.
Take that whole Great Lakes restoration project. All eight states that border the Great Lakes are immediately affected. Any action that any one of them takes can be nullified by the action - or inaction - of its neighbor. In order to clean up the pollution, all had to act in concert. In order for that to happen, the federal government had to direct the project. And it worked. DJT and his cronies want to kill the program.
They say it's to cut government costs, but it's a penny program - $300 million - and they turn around and say they want to give $54 billion more to the biggest military establishment on the planet. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure you can't reduce government costs by spending more.
There are plenty of other examples. The FAA, for example. Why should we need a federal aviation authority? Shouldn't states be able to regulate their own air traffic and air fleets? Well ... not if you want a system that actually works.
Or how about interstate highways? Railways? Over-the-road trucking? Package delivery? These are all federally regulated aspects of the commercial economy. A lot of the super-rich make their money by moving money around, but the corporations that generate the profits that get paid to these shareholders make their money by moving products.
An argument could be made that the U.S. Postal Service has outlived its usefulness. (There are plenty of people who still get their mail through the mail. You know ... old-fashioned, rural people. The same people who are going to lose from one to four major healthcare options when the ACA is repealed.) Why shouldn't the feds shut down the USPS and contract mail delivery out to Amazon? The people who matter - to this administration - already have Prime.
An argument could also be made that the Department of Education has outlived its usefulness. And maybe it has. Maybe it is actually better for the future of the nation that each state have its own internally-designed system, that each state be legally permitted to discriminate as much as it wants in provision of services, so that the people who matter - to this administration - don't have to see their $10 a year in federal taxes going to a program that benefits the poor, or the brown.
Frankly, California would be better off if federal oversight of education is dismantled; then we won't be forced to buy those crappy textbooks from Texas.
But looking down the road, one could predict that before too long the entire student bodies of Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc may be either foreign-born students, or students from "blue" states. And then people in Kansas or Alabama will be whining about how Harvard is discriminating and shouldn't be allowed to enroll students from overseas. Which would require, guess what, federal regulation.
The point is, federal regulations are overwhelmingly put into place because citizens want government protection, or government assistance, in specific areas: and the states, working independently, cannot get the job done.
But sure: erase them all. Start from scratch. But if you do not also jettison Medicare, Social Security, and that bloated military establishment, you are not going to be spending less so ... what exactly is the point?
I submit that the point is to further enrich the obscenely wealthy, the oligarchy that is already profiting to the tune of millions (if not billions) by stock-market gains based on corporate projections based on "we're not going to have to work clean anymore."
I would suggest, to the individual investor who is not obscenely wealthy, to hedge your bets. Because many of these attempts at deregulation are going to be tied up in court for years. That coal mine is probably not going to be able to start dumping its toxic tailings in the local creek like it did in the 1930s. And the oil company that gets a free pass to drill anywhere it wants is not going to be producing for years, maybe decades.
And don't put all of your money in the stock market. Because you're going to need that money in liquid form when all of a sudden it costs $500 to get your teeth cleaned or $1000 for a mammogram.