After a tragedy—particularly a preventable one—we often collectively demand that the government “do something.” It’s a natural response. Most people don’t want bad things to happen, and most people want the people in positions of authority to take reasonable steps to prevent them.

Sometimes you will find me bellowing right along with the “do something” crowd. After every debacle at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA, “Metro”), especially those that result in deaths or injuries, you’ll find me questioning why the local, state, and federal authorities with oversight responsibility for the agency didn’t do anything to prevent it. But, in these cases, the authorities in question could have done something, should have done something, and had the legal authority to do something. That is not always the case. And furthermore, the “something” I wanted them to do was something that made sense . . . you know, like checking the ventilation systems or complying with decades-old recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). “Something” must be defined.

Other times, the drive to “do something” can be counterproductive or inappropriate. Consider, for example, what happened when we demanded that our federal legislators “do something” about the methamphetamine (meth) epidemic. There was, and there still is, a real problem. Cooking meth is dangerous, and people who produce it in their garages and basements have an unfortunate habit of blowing up their houses. And of course, the abuse of meth itself has significant costs to the individual abusers, their families, and our society. And there are things that our local and state governments can do to combat the problem. This is not a federal issue.

Read more . . .