More Compliance Officers Needed Due to Over-Regulation

No evidence was provided any indication that "over-regulation" was the problem so we'll ignore that. Overwhelmingly regulations exist to address an abuse. For example perhaps the most regulated industry in America is the military-industrial complex and that regulation was created over time due to extensive fraud and abuse by the contracted companies. OHSA regulations were create based upon "best practices" by industry to ensure the safety of the workers and the workplace. All of these are overwhelmingly necessary regulations.

The issue of "compliance officers" is a completely different matter. There is a basic assumption that the more that those affected by regulations comply with the regulations the fewer the number of compliance officers required while ignoring the regulations would require more compliance officers. Whether a regulation is necessary or unnecessary doesn't really matter but instead what matters is if it's being complied with or not.

The IRS, for example, requires a lot of compliance officers (auditors) because the tax laws are complex and many people, intentionally or unintentionally, are not complying with the tax codes. From my perspective the tax codes are unnecessarily complex because they embrace crony capitalism with special treatment of certain individuals over others and certain enterprises over others. I've made a federal tax proposal that eliminates all of the "special considerations" under the tax code where only gross income of the household or profit for enterprise has to be verified by the IRS and few Americans lie about their income. The number of compliance officers would be dramatically reduced under my tax proposal because people and enterprises don't typically misrepresent income. 

If the increase in the number of compliance officers is based upon a failure of Americans to comply with the regulations then it's justified even if we politically disagree with any of the regulations. As Americans it's our responsibility to comply with the regulations that affect us whether we agree with them or not.

Of course if the additions of compliance officers is arbitrary and not based upon a need to address noncompliance that's a different matter completely but I doubt that's the case.

I also find it hard to believe that percentage-wise many new regulations have been added since 2009 considering the fact that ten years ago someone calculated that it would take an American reading all of the laws, codes, and regulations we're subjected to about 500 years if they spent 8hrs/day reading them. Even "Obamacare" as massive as it is and the corresponding increase regulations stemming from it probably didn't add even a year's worth of reading to what we already had.

Here is a question though on adding more compliance officers. If USDA is adding compliance officers to reduce the $750 million in fraud related to the SNAP program is that something that's being objected to? If the INS is adding compliance officers to deal with illegal immigration is that something that's being objected to? If the IRS is adding more compliance officer to reduce tax fraud is that something that's being objected to?

As for regulation of the banking industry all we need to remember it that it was the banking industry that was responsible for the 2008 recession. The banking industry, without any regulation, could have prevented the mortgage market collapse but didn't so obviously we didn't have enough regulations related to the banking industry.