It's a tax. It's so some people can spend money without going to the trouble of earning it.

The LA Times story says 1200 gallons. "Thousands of gallons" is a big exaggeration that is probably intended to mislead people. But it's more than 70 gallons.

What's the point? Either there are lots of problems all over and therefore we need to think about regulation, or not. This story is about one incident. It does not indicate lots of problems. It does not counter-indicate lots of problems either. If there is data to indicate widespread problems, post the data.

Stop pretending to have knowledge. Either post it or admit you don't know.

So you'd rather people continue to die every year in oil train crashes? You don't have to "imagine" the train crash that killed 47 people in Quebec last summer.

Here's an easy fix: regulate the courts. The courts must be dangerously under-regulated if they are as inefficient as you say.

Why do we need national regulations to deal with a small local problem that affects only a few people?

Is it because you have a personal hatred for one of the parties involved? Is it because you will personally gain from the regulation? Or is it because you think everything in the world needs a regulatory hand guiding it -- a government hand, with armed enforcers to punish anyone who gets out of line? Which is it?

Here in the US, males 26 and older are forced to buy health insurance that includes pregnancy, even though pregnancy isn't a health condition for males.

Billionaire says "figure out a way to" pay for it. Meanwhile, he will be figuring out ways to collude with other companies to keep your salary low and to bring in thousands of people from Asia to compete with you for jobs.

For 401k plans, you pay the money into the plan every paycheck. When the person retires, no more money is paid into the account. The retiree draws upon the money saved during his working years. All the costs are up-front, borne by the people who received the benefit from the work done.

With pensions, all the promises are up front. Then people who come along later are stuck with the bill -- paying for more and more in pensions and getting less and less in government services.

Veteran's pensions don't fight wars. Police pensions don't patrol the streets. Fire fighter pensions don't put out fires. Teacher pensions don't teach kids.

Pensions should be replaced with a 401K-style savings plan. The people who soldiers fought for should be paying the cost, not their grandchildren. If you got fire protection from a fire fighter, you should pay, not the guy who moves into your town 10 years after the fire fighter retires.

So what's the difference and why does it matter?

The same thing that's wrong with all one-size-fits-all requirements: One size does not fit all, and the people your requirements don't fit are being oppressed.

Most such requirements, including this one, are also unnecessary. Buy your car where you can get service if you want. Don't if you don't. So your requirement oppresses people, and it does it unnecessarily. If you want a working definition of government evil, that's a good start.

If you look at the chart at the link, it's 500-1000 out of 22000 or so -- 22000 is an all time high. So it's obviously the most outrageous outrage in history and we should all panic and wail and rend our clothes.

A 5% budget cut is "the destruction of the greatest source of innovation the U.S. -- and the world -- has ever seen"?

Just for some perspective on Federal government spending, "General Science, Space, and Technology" spending is up 12% (after inflation adjustment) from 2002-2012 and "Health" spending is up 41% during the same period. "Energy" spending is up 2400%.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/... -- see table 3.2

Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own a TV.