One of the provisions of Frank’s bill — the “Give the FTC a Drink and Tell It to Go for a Drive Act” — would repeal some of the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Act that were enacted in 1980. One of the provisions of that act limited the rule-making power of the FTC because the FTC had started behaving like a binge drinker of regulatory booze.

Congress found “that in many instances the FTC had taken actions beyond the intent of Congress.” HIC! After one binge, the FTC considered imposing a total ban on advertising directed at children. Even the Washington Post said that would turn the FTC into the “national nanny.”

The FTC’s current chairman, Jon Leibowitz, argues for additional power (streamlined rule-making procedure) on the grounds that it is “generally available to other federal agencies.” As in, “Johnny can drink. Why can’t I?”

Well, Johnny’s family only serves beer. Most other regulatory agencies are limited to a single industry. The jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission is limited to the securities industry. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates only commodity futures and option markets. The FTC, however — HIC! — regulates across most of the U.S. economy.

Leibowitz has promised to use any new authority “very judiciously.” (“I’ll be very careful in delivering this bottle of Vat 69 to the pope.”)

Puh-leeze. Does anyone really think that a man appointed by a president who has nationalized two car companies and the entire U.S. health system will use any power “very judiciously”? And incidentally, raise your hand if you think “very judiciously” is a tighter standard than “judiciously.”

Asked in a Senate hearing to enumerate the areas in which faster rule-making authority would be helpful to the FTC, Leibowitz replied he’d have to think for a while about what the commission wanted to do with it. (Don’t they have lifelines at Senate hearings?)

Can it be that the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, who has been a commissioner at the FTC since 2004, can’t name a single area where the FTC would employ a new power? It is as likely that what he plans to do with the new power would scare even this Senate. As in, “I’m not going to tell you what I plan to do with this bottle, Senator.” HIC!

The long history of the FTC is a sorry one: For almost its entire history, from 1914 to 1981, it muddled and meddled, and undoubtedly caused far more harm than good to consumers, the only people it was supposed to help.

The saving grace in the period from 1981 to 1989 was that it realized that the market doesn’t have to work perfectly to work better than government.

One of the FTC’s charges is to prevent practices that are “unfair,” a standard the Supreme Court described as “by necessity, an elusive one.” It is never a good idea to have independent regulatory commissioners, goaded on by grandstanding congressmen and campaigning attorneys general, wielding power based on an elusive standard. Especially when they can’t even tell you what they plan to do with their power.

For that matter, it is never a good idea to have independent commissioners. I should know: I was one. I could not be removed by the president or by Congress (except “for cause”). No one in a democracy, except a member of the judiciary, should have such a position.

In the 22nd century we may understand that regulating is a psychological disorder. Until then, we should parcel out regulatory power to unelected, unremovable, regulatory commissioners very judiciously.

Daniel Oliver is a senior director of the White House Writers Group in Washington. He served as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan.