February 28, 2005
Fighting Corporate Power
That title suggests a belligerent anti-corporate agenda of the sort that draws wails of mockery from most conservative and libertarian quarters. But this warrior against corporate excess and power is perfectly happy to stipulate that much is owed over the last century and more to enterprises which have their genesis and delivery in corporate activity.
I'll also allow that there are instances where regulations on industry go too far and squelch desirable innovation. But the strong trend over the last quarter century has been a disturbing acceleration of the ability of corporations to wield their wealth to gain power to create more wealth. It is terribly naive to believe that the common good will be preserved by the scruples of CEOs and market forces when so much power has been accorded the corporate decision makers.
No I do not hate corporations or believe that corporate executives are evil, but yes I do believe the current trend toward corporate empowerment is nearly as dangerous and frightening as the fundamentalism of the most extreme and violent 'Muslim' or 'Christian' sects. At least those threats are drawing widespread concern and attention from powerful adversaries, whereas the opponents of extended corporate power are routinely labeled as leftist or Communist in an attempt to marginalize that natural opposition. Unlike fundamentalist extremists, corporations hold great power for good in the world, but in the absence of a reasoned and effective authority to rein in their inevitable excesses, that potential will be squandered. Those corporations with the greatest proclivity to contribute to the common good are either overwhelmed or pressured away from doing so by their need to compete with the under-regulated competition who do not share their scruples.
I've written before about the need for right regulation, rather than necessarily harsher or more lenient regulation, but the current trend is certainly dangerously in favor of deregulation, both here in the United States and internationally. Many people have the perception that there is some sort of balance, at least in the United States, between those protecting the interests of corporations and those protecting the interests of workers, consumers, and the environment. Some incredibly believe that corporations are too pushed around. That comes from our tendency to focus on a story at a time, rather than looking at the big picture.
We see the investigative reports, some of which are eventually adjudicated against the corporate interest, but those are the tip of the iceberg and those stories which don't make the news overwhelmingly favor the corporations. Indeed many of them are hardly stories at all, as there are not the resources to engage every instance of regulatory change in favor of corporate interests. The current administration, and that of former President Reagan, were both relentless in rewriting regulations and procedures, and in reducing the extent of enforcement of existing laws, when it came to protecting the interests of those whose money did so much to elect them. Even though Bush I and Clinton were both far more moderate in their approach, the moneyed interests of corporations still played a huge role in retaining much of their gains of the Reagan era, and the current administration has unabashedly pushed through a flagrantly pro-corporate agenda.
Jim Hightower in "Thieves in High Places: They've Stolen Our Country and It's Time to Take It Back" uses over five pages chronicling 125 actions of the Bush Administration, which he declares represent only a subset of their "assault on Mother Nature to empower their polluter pals at the expense of our earth, our health, and future generations." Here's but a small subsample:
+ Delayed implementation of mining regulations intended to protect watersheds + Tried to shrink boundaries of nineteen national monuments and to allow oil and gas drilling on all public lands + Froze environmental rules finalized by Clinton, including one to minimize discharges of raw sewage + Defunded program to implement court rulings in Endangered Species cases brought by citizens + Suspended the right-to-know regulation requiring utilities to inform consumers about arsenic in their water + Rejected freedom-of-information request for a list of corporate participants in Cheney's energy policy task force + Supported nuclear industry's proposal to store waste in Yucca Mountain, despite scientific objection + Cut 270 positions from the EPA's enforcement division + Announced a plan for recycling radioactive waste into consumer products, from lawn chairs and zippers to spoons and baby cribs + Stalled implementation of rules requiring utilities to reduce toxic emissions from expanded power plants + Relaxed nationwide permit rules so coal companies, developers, and others can fill in thousands of streams, swamps, and other wetlands, without public notice or comment + Issued a new policy abrogating the national goal set by Bush I of "no net loss" of wetlands + Announce new targets for power plant emissions, allowing 50 percent more sulfur emissions (acid rain) than current law, three times more toxic mercury emissions, and tons of additional nitrogen oxide (smog) + Killed funds to support environmental education in public schools + Eliminated funds for EPA grants for graduate student research in environmental sciences + Increased taxpayer subsidy for timber company purchases of trees from our national forests by 35 percent + Tried to strip the state of California's right to review Bush proposals to allow oil drilling off its coast + Eliminated scientific committees that disagreed with its policies, stacking new committees with scientists who have ties to regulated industries, including on PC&E hireling who fought Erin Brockovich + Expanded oil exploration in Colorado's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument + Killed a proposal to establish a citizen review panel to oversee the trans-Alaska pipeline + Supported plan to let chemical giants in Louisiana emit more cancer-causing pollutants in exchange for reducing emissions of less dangerous pollutants + Doubled the number of open-pit limestone mines to be opened in the Florida Everglades, eventually creating a thirty-square-mile hole in the middle of this irreplaceable water wonder + Put industry-backed amendment into Homeland Security Bill that effectively exempts chemical plants, utilities, and other polluters from the public's right-to-know laws, which require corporations to tell their neighbors what poisons are being spewed on them + Sent memo to all EPA employees urging them to "express support for the president and his program" when off duty + Withdrew Clinton rule requiring cleanup of polluted rivers and substituted a voluntary program + Cut the civil penalties that polluters have to pay by half + Stacked the CDC advisory committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention with industry scientists + Instructed EPA to discount by 63 percent the value of lives of senior citizens when assessing whether to impose new restrictions on industries that pollute the airAnd the list goes on, and on, and on. Here's another subsample. Does Hightower have an agenda here? Sure. Does he paint each policy in the most unflattering light? Sometimes, maybe, but neither is he making this stuff up out of whole cloth. I've certainly not researched all of these items, but the trend is undeniable. By creating such a huge list, one-tenth of which I've reproduced here, Hightower burns in the point that it stretches credulity to argue that each is justifiable on its merits, or that there is anything close to a level playing field here.
Indeed it can be exhausting to fight the current deregulatory madness, and no one person can do it alone, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty within the corporate world who are privately dismayed about the extent to which rules are disappearing, hence favoring their most unscrupulous competition. My hope is that such individuals can begin to network and find a public voice to add to the conversation, showing that it is not only the left, labor, environmentalists, and consumer rights groups who see the imbalance. One of the most hopeful developments over the last twenty years has been increasing cooperation between labor and environmentalists, who put aside years of distrust to work together on numerous issues of shared concern. The current extremism in protection of corporate interests, while extremely frightening, may yet plant the seeds for its own demise by going too far and alienating too many of its own putative interests.
Globalization further complicates potential solutions, but America remains the center of gravity of the corporate world, and to the extent that we abdicate our responsibility to keep corporations in check, how can we expect developing nations to exhibit any scruples.
Allow me to point out that a good place to start in implementing any kind of “responsible” corporate reform is the complete elimination of legal corporate “personhood.” When corporations enjoy the same rights and protections as individual citizens, you get an almost un-approachable, un-accountable “entity” that is at once both myopic and insatiable. This is a recipe for disaster. As a social Democrat, I firmly believe in the moral principle that those who benefit most from society owe it the biggest debt. Right now, in bass-ackward Bush alternate reality, just the opposite holds true. Poor people have too much money, and Corporations don’t have enough. This kind of delusional psychosis would make Don Quixote positively green with envy. Also, these corporate “persons” who benefit so mightily from Bush largesse are depriving the same, lower class red state workers who helped usher Bush into office of their right to organize at an exponential rate. Add to this the fact that the same government lap-dogs and pimps who constantly genuflect at the altar of corporate America have essentially neutered OSHA, and you get… well, the nineteenth century all over again.
I just read a NY Times op-ed piece where in the same breath the author acknowledges Wal-Mart’s ruthless predatory practices, yet places the blame on the victims! (His argument was, “Hey, you don’t have to shop or work there!”) This is disingenuous in the extreme. In the semi-rural Kentucky county where I live, there are TWO Wal-Mart super centers. Many local businesses just couldn’t compete and promptly went bankrupt. Wal-Mart moved out of it’s old “semi super” center, leaving the building empty for years, until the crumbling hulks were purchased by “flea markets.” Imagine how many of my fellow Countians are employed and subsequently denied the right to organize, etc., that they had possessed only a short while previously with local businesses that are now haunting their memories. There are similar horror stories of corporate excesses across America, regardless of one’s class or location. With the current Administrations’ total lack or regard for human rights and perverse sense of crony capitalism, you can expect corporate America to plunder with giddy enthusiasm, with no thought for the future. Or humanity for that matter. Take away the protections that personhood grants these beasts while you still can. It’s the Kryptonite that the labor movement so desperately needs.
Walker -
I know this is a tangential point in your piece above, but I challenge you to name one Christian group that is “violent”. Lumping those whose opinions you despise in with those who commit murder is as intellectually irresponsible as it is mean.
Regulation is expensive. It requires taxpayer funded bureaucrats and lawyers to monitor what people do and forces private firms and individuals to spend time and money to comply with these mandates. It often creates legal expenses, both actual and defensive and requires extensive reporting.
Beyond that, regulations bureaucratize large sectors of private business. A partnership with a loose management structure might have to go to a less flexible rules based regime, maybe even hire a compliance officer to understand all the rules. All this interferes with efficiency creating extra costs and higher priced products.
Big firms benefit over new ones under strong regulation. Complying (or even understanding) regulations is a high barrier to getting into a business. The fat cats already have departments that handle these things. That is why executives from large firms sometimes favor regulation.
Regulations are never free and can be very expensive, so we should have as few as necessary and judge each proposal for new ones by the additional cost versus the benefit.
As any homeowner knows, it is sometimes better to tolerate a problem than pay the expense of attempting to fix it and sometimes the fix is more uncomfortable than the problem itself. With that simple rule in mind, I just went down a couple of lines of the Hightower complaints and copied random sample to discuss.
+ Froze environmental rules finalized by Clinton, including one to minimize discharges of raw sewage
This I recall. Clinton finalized many environmental rules in January 2001. He never bothered to do it while he was actually running the country. He knew Bush would have to roll them back. It was a political ploy, not environmental protection.
+ Defunded program to implement court rulings in Endangered Species cases brought by citizens
Good. The Endangered Species Act has become an offensive weapon. The definition of a species has become vague in the law. It is also possible to claim that a species is locally endangered. Since almost every area on earth lies at the edge of some species range or contains a subspecies, you can challenge any development.
+ Suspended the right-to-know regulation requiring utilities to inform consumers about arsenic in their water
Poison is in the dosage. Arsenic is naturally occurring in many water supplies. Any of us who traveled or lived in mountains have consumed arsenic. The funny thing is that people will fight for the right to drill their own wells that can contain high levels or arsenic.
+ Rejected freedom-of-information request for a list of corporate participants in Cheney’s energy policy task force
The Freedom of Information Act is specific in its requirements. If it is not required, they have no obligation to release. FOIA is another good law that is used offensively by pressure groups. You have to maintain the possibility for some people to give confidential viewpoints. Otherwise everything becomes bureaucratic, legalistic or politicized.
+ Supported nuclear industry’s proposal to store waste in Yucca Mountain, despite scientific objection
You have to store the waste somewhere. Everywhere in the world will have an objection. The alternative is storing on the nuclear plant sites. Good leadership requires you make hard decisions. As I recall, John Kerry supported the Yucca Mountain site before he ran for president.
So in my sample of deregulation, the Bush Administration seems to have acted responsibly. There is a problem with deregulation in theory. We could always have that one rule that makes the relieves that particular issue, but to return to my homeowner analogy, let’s not tear up all the pipes because the toilet sometimes runs.
Briefly, Jack, regulation attempts may be abused by both sides and each example you chose to refute is best decided on a case-by-case scenario - ie, left up to the judges. But they need the regulation to look at in the first place, otherwise there’s nothing on which to base a judgement.
As for the corporate takeover of America, you see it in the way Americans choose to live. We have a fast moving economy, prices our low, service is non-existent, quality is dropping in place of profit - but these are things we’ve chosen as Americans. Perhaps it’s because we’re tired of making choices: why not just shop at Fry’s Electronics instead of trying to hunt down local stores? Large selection, decent prices. What’s popular in music today? What the RIAA tells us is popular - they give us choices, and we pick a few.
But the issue with our culture is really the extreme competition. As long as people are willing to pay less, work more, and not care about inequities in the system - well, what better way to raise profits? If you don’t move facilities offshore and avoid taxes and enslave children, you can’t compete. Your product will cost more than it already does (it’s funny, even with child labor, Nike still makes the most expensive shoes…it’s easy to boycott their stuff).
We’ve brought it to this point, it’s what Americans want - easier selections, low prices. Start throwing legislation to make things more difficult for large corporations, and you lose both.
You know, I feel icky everytime I even think about going to Wal-Mart. Am I classist? Likely a bit…but I hate walking into a store and seeing a third of the items strewn about the floor like a teenager’s bedroom. It’s depressing to me that a business can perform like that and still make money. But it’s what we as Americans have lowered our standards to, and it’s what we as Americans can afford.
Posted by: Thomas R at February 28, 2005 11:40 AMThomas-
You would likely have the same feeling if you walked into a Carrefour Hypermarket in Europe; it’s not just the U.S. standards that have been lowered. And I, like many Americans or Europeans, will trade the shopping experience for a cost savings on many (not all) of the products/services that I buy.
As Jack stated the key is to define the cost of the regulation. No new regulation should be passed without a sunset provision so that some form of cost/benefit analysis is performed after factual data is acquired. As for de-regulation some sort of savings/impact study should also be required.
Posted by: George at February 28, 2005 12:25 PMWonderful article, Walker!
Very good points, Jeff.
Jeff,
I absolutely agree that corporate personhood needs to be utterly abandoned as a legal precept. When I mentioned it on this site earlier this month, American Pundit expressed curiosity, and I made a mental note that I should do a little more research and post an article here later, specifically devoted to corporate personhood. Though it is likely to take years to happen, I hold out considerable hope that the will may eventually be gathered to overturn CP in our lifetime. I believe we need to be careful, though, to avoid vilification of corporations overall in pointing out the dangers of both corporate personhood and corporate excess. It certainly appears currently that “corporate America is plundering with giddy enthusiasm, with no thought for the future or humanity”, but the thousands of executives across our country who are perfectly decent human beings are among our most vital allies in the fight against excess. While precious few of them may currently believe it is in their best interest to void corporate personhood, it will not be possible to appeal to their better natures if we simultaneously use language that suggests we believe they are evil. Even in stating that, there is far too much “we and they” there. We’re all in this together, and the sooner we realize it, the better the chances of implementing the procedural changes which best allow innovation to flourish, while protecting employees, consumers, and our natural environment.
Chops,
I wrote: nearly as dangerous and frightening as the fundamentalism of the most extreme and violent ‘Muslim’ or ‘Christian’ sects.
You replied: I challenge you to name one Christian group that is “violent”. Lumping those whose opinions you despise in with those who commit murder is as intellectually irresponsible as it is mean.
Upon reflection I acknowledge that my choice of example was careless, though it was not mean. My use of quotes was intended to emphasize that I meant only fringe groups, who would be disavowed by mainstream Muslims or mainstream Christians. There ARE groups which call themselves Christian and advocate violence (Aryan nations, godhatesfags.com, the IRA, and if you go back a few hundred years the crusaders), but in this country, no such group constitutes a major threat comparable to Al Qaida, for instance, so it was a poor example.
Thanks for acknowledging that your objection was tangential, and for keeping me honest.
Jack,
I’m the first to acknowledge that this is a complex topic and many environmental activists have a kneejerk turf-protecting attitude about keeping EVERY regulation currently on the books, regardless of whether they make sense. I’m willing to stipulate that of the 125 bullet points that Hightower happened to choose, some number of them are very reasonably defensible. But this administration (as was Reagan’s) is so flagrantly lopsided in this regard, that I find any defense of his environmental record on the whole as disingenuous at best.
Are you not willing to stipulate that there are some regulations which do not exist which probably should?
Are you willing to acknowledge that this administration routinely muzzles those in government, whether they are in the EPA, the FDA, or the SEC, who call for sensible additional restrictions?
Do you honestly believe that corporate donations which Bush and the RNC actively solicited and received play anything less than a huge role in the behavior of the administration?
You correctly point out that very small levels of arsenic may be necessary, and imply correctly that disclosure sometimes results in unwarranted public panic. But does that mean that the public is best served by keeping toxin levels undisclosed? I think not. We just have to deal with the fact that some will overreact, and put out the best information possible about what levels are dangerous and what levels are not.
Regulation is sometimes messy and sometimes inefficient, but it is dangerously naive to believe that because it is not perfect that it is better to defer to the expertise of those who have a financial incentive to overlook possible dangers to keep us safe.
I’m all for having two sides to argue the merits of each regulation. The trend that I observe and which Hightower documents is clearly one-sided in implementation, and we dismiss those who dissent at our own peril.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at February 28, 2005 01:53 PMSo, let me get things straight.
We as Americans should be willing to suffer from things like black lung and arsenic poisoning because regulation is too expensive.
And through regulation we may piss off the corporations with the CEOs that make 10s of millions in stock options and that pay their workers as little as possible to infate their bottom line.
The corporations doing the poisoning say they will take their jobs off shore where there are no regulations and poison someone else.
That sounds like a win/win situation to me.
Posted by: Rocky at February 28, 2005 01:57 PMNo Rocky, we should not be willing to suffer arsenic poisoning and black lung. But some regulations address red herring issues.
Arsenic in water is a good example. People have been drinking water with naturally occurring arsenic forever. Because arsenic is a famous poison, it is possible to scare people into demanding regulations. Ironically, some of that crystal clear, unpolluted (by man) mountain water would be considered dangerous while a lot of city water drawn from the local river would pass. So they might shut down your well outside Aspen and ship up some Missouri River water to replace it.
The world can’t be made perfectly safe and regulations sometimes don’t make you safer. If you regulate incorrectly, you unnecessarily add costs and may foreclose options. I have a bottle of Diet Coke in front of me. I drink a lot of this. It contains sweeteners that may cause cancer. What if you regulated them? I switch to regular Coke full of sugar and calories. Getting fatter and the risk of diabetes far outweigh the risk of cancer. And that refers to a regulation that might even make some logical health sense.
Many regulations just have the effect of preventing competition. Others just prevent worthy things from happening. Near my house is a busy street. Pedestrians have to run for their lives to cross it. A proposal to build a pedestrian bridge was killed by regulation. How? A bridge that complied with all the local, state and federal regulations, as well as the provisions was just too expensive. Even if we could afford the cost, there wasn’t enough room for the slope of ramps required by the ADA. So people keep on running the gauntlet. Sometime they get hit and occasionally killed.
All regulation costs money. I am not saying that we should not have any, but I am saying that we should carefully assess what we are getting into.
It is easy to see a problem and propose a new rule. But the rule may well live longer than the problem and once established, with its own constituency, it is more likely to be expanded than repealed. Most railroads still required a “fireman” to shovel in coal twenty years after they converted to diesel fuel. The regulations required it and we didn’t start getting rid of these anachronisms until the general deregulation took hold.
Jack,
I was pleased to see that you had responded, but a little disappointed that you didn’t address my second and third questions.
1) Are you not willing to stipulate that there are some regulations which do not exist which probably should? (You seem to be)
2) Are you willing to acknowledge that this administration routinely muzzles those in government, whether they are in the EPA, the FDA, or the SEC, who call for sensible additional restrictions?
3) Do you honestly believe that corporate donations which Bush and the RNC actively solicited and received play anything less than a huge role in the behavior of the administration?
Apologies if you are already in the process of commenting further.
I agree with pretty much everything you say in your most recent comment, but continue to believe that the current Administration is entirely kneejerk in the way they go about their business.
I think you and I are basically after the same ideal, we just disagree a bit on where to draw the lines. Now it may be that the place you would tend to draw lines is closer to where the current administration would than to where I would, but the evidence that I see suggests that the Bush administration is not after any ideals here other than doing the bidding of their corporate donors.
In spite of all the deregulation that has occurred in the last 25 years, there are still plenty of stupid rules which are too complex, very expensive, and don’t net us anything. It is just as incorrect to infer that their continued presence means that all this deregulation just hasn’t gone far enough as it is to infer from the absence of a very sensible regulation that every regulation still on the books must be vital.
I believe it is possible to improve, strengthen, and simplify our regulatory structure such that smaller businesses will have an easier time understanding them. But I do believe that on balance regulations do need strengthening and better enforcement, after years of attack (and yes it has been a full-scale attack) primarily from your beloved Reagan, and from the current corporate-run executive branch.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at February 28, 2005 05:18 PMChops
Ya gotta be kiddin! Shall we go back to the Crusades? The auto-da-fe of the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of heretics? Jeanne D’Arc was burned by the Church! The Salem witch trials more recently. And of course we have the violent anti-abortion bombers and good ol’ Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols, such a good Christian men that they just had to blow up innocent victims in retaliation for that other peace-loving Christian group headed by David Koresh in Waco. Yeah, yeah, you define them away as not being Christian, but I could play the same trick by saying the Islamic terrorists are not really Islamic. And I understand that they account for less than 0.0001% of Christians.
In any event, jingoism is not helpful in understanding the roots of violence, and it is especially unhelpful to pretend that ones own are incapable of violence. Such thinking probably delayed the solving of the Murrah building bombing, for instance, and I am worried it could make us vulnerable to attacks by internal terrorists as we focus exclusively on the threat from Muslims.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 28, 2005 06:03 PMWalker,
Allow me to point out that a good place to start in implementing any kind of “responsible” corporate reform is the complete elimination of legal corporate “personhood.”
I agree with the essence of your post, but eliminating legal corporate “personhood” is equivalent to eliminating one of the major advantages of a corporation—liability protection. I am the sole director of a corporation I formed to protect my personal assets from lawsuits (especially important in these days of frivolous lawsuits). Now, this doesn’t protect me from getting sued as a corporation, and if I did anything negligent as a director or officer I can still be personally sued. However, businesses like mine would suffer terribly if someone could come along and sue me for frivolous reasons and—assuming they won—could not only take away all my corporate assets but also my house, my car, and everything else I own. If this were the case you would also make it hard on nonprofit corporations because they would have a lot of trouble finding directors to serve (especially without compensation) if those directors could be personally sued for their contributions (whether or not they were personally liable). Finally, I would hate to be sued and have my condo taken away from me because a visitor fell down the steps in the common area and they could sue me personally for that rather than the condo association. Sure, you would be right to say that I could get insurance to cover this—but it is much less expensive to get insurance for the condo association as a whole rather than for each individual member to obtain their own policy. It would not be possible (and pointless anyway) for a condo association, a nonprofit, or any other kind of corporation to obtain insurance to protect its members without the corporation being considered a legal entity in its own right. I’m all for corporate reform and higher accountability—but it shouldn’t be done by stripping away one of the very reasons for corporations to exist in the first place.
Walker
Sorry
I tend to read and write between doing other things, so I miss or forget parts. Let me address the questions.
1)Are you not willing to stipulate that there are some regulations which do not exist which probably should? (You seem to be)
Yes. You are right. Society has a right to defend itself from economic efficiency. Not everything that can be done should be done. But you have to be careful. If I was king, things would be different, but I admit maybe not better.
2)Are you willing to acknowledge that this administration routinely muzzles those in government, whether they are in the EPA, the FDA, or the SEC, who call for sensible additional restrictions?
I don’t know if it is routine and I don’t know if the regulations are sensible. Bureaucrats are not disinterested parties to regulation. Regulations add to their power and allow them to further pet projects. Beyond that, give a man a hammer and everything starts looking like a nail. Bureaucrats might honestly believe in their solution and be honestly wrong. We elect leaders to make laws. They hire bureaucrats to help them carry out this duty. A good boss listens to his employees, but doesn’t always follow their advice. When employee tries to go around the boss, you are never sure if it is justified or not. Some employees are ethical and consequent; others are just troublemakers.
3)Do you honestly believe that corporate donations which Bush and the RNC actively solicited and received play anything less than a huge role in the behavior of the administration?
Contributions play roles in all administrations. It is the only way to get noticed. Once in, however, I don’t think it is a simple matter of paying for a particular behavior. People tend to contribute to those they believe in. When the person wins, that is enough. I gave more than I could afford to GW Bush and the party because I thought it was my duty. I get nothing for that except the satisfaction that I contributed in my small way to Republican victory.
Contributors try to get involved in areas where they have interest or expertise. Sometimes they have a lot to contribute beyond money. A friend of mine is a medium sized contributor to the administration and is possibly up for good job. He will take a big pay cut if he takes it. He has been asking my advice on a particular issue that I happen to understand. I provide that advice free and with no anticipation of profit because I believe it is of service to my country. I understand, however, that many people would consider what I am saying misguided and they would be convinced I had some ulterior motive. I don’t. They are wrong, but it would be hard to convince anyone who didn’t want to be convinced.
Corporations should not have rights of personhood.
(source was a Railroad case). And, govt. employee unions should be treated as policital in nature re huge campaign donations which elect pol. whores of their choice. (yes, must get the money out of. $100M to the political, media, consultant whores spent in OH alone… but moneys not to to keep factories there or stop outsourcing or keep schools from closing up or keep jobs there!)
Am basically against unions from what have seen in last few decades, although think strongly that: 1) any citizen who wants to work should have a ajob and a living wage 2) people should be able to organize more informally than union structures to influence for reas. working conditions.
MAKE NO MISTAKE: THIS IS A WAR ON US. I AM ALL FOR WHATEVER TYPE OF SQUADS IT TAKES TO TURN THIS ECON. SHIP AROUND FOR OUR WONDERFUL COUNTRY. THIS IS A WAR ON AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS CITIZENS. EVEN IF A SEPARATE BLOG TO DO SO IS WARRANTED.
I think imported products need to be taxed more…as do the people who buy them.
I also need insurances need to be upped or cut for people who buy foreign made Lexuses etc. …and laugh at people like me for trying to comm. to them how they are selling their own fellow citizens (and country) down the river. They do it because they can…there are no penalties for them. (Made and passed out hand-outs for a couple years on my own.
ALSO: WE CANNOT GIVE ANY GOVT. BENEFS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T BEEN CITIZENS FOR 20 YEARS.
MUST MEANS-TEST GOVT. BENEFS FOR CITIZENS.
MUST RESTORE THE MILLIONAIRE’S TAX RATE.
MUST UP THE SOC. SEC. TAXED INCOME LEVEL.
MAKE NO MISTAKE. THIS IS A WAR ON US…FROM SEVERAL FRONTS.
I REALLY DON’T THINK THIS COUNTRY CAN TAKE THE HEMORRHAGING OF 4 YEARS OF BUSH & HIS CROWD.
AND, I AM WHAT TERM A REASONIST NON-PARTISAN.
“BOSTON TEA PARTIES” NEEDED? ETC. ETC. ETC. ACTIONS NEEDED.
____________________________
An Added Notation may omit:
Stopping and preventing lawsuits would help many. Lincoln said (as the old Ital. proverb also) better to have a thin settlement than go to court. A pruning of lawsuits is coming about …finally and will be more of. We cannot and have not been able to afford all this ……
We can resolve problems if my invented approach of med—arb can grow. (end runs around attorneys and judges done by several smart people with basic business, legal, logic, and sense of fair play sense[including bus drivers]
Posted by: Alex at February 28, 2005 11:11 PMJack-
First, not every worthy law or regulation is cheap or profitable. Question is, how badly are you willing to suffer and let others suffer in order to save money?
Second, even if we accept the notion that our pocketbooks should decide environmental policy, what measure of cost are you taking? Is it not true that pollutants can degrade property values, harm health, and destroy scenic attractions, among other things? Bad environmental policy can be, in fact, costly.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2005 11:39 PMStephen
There is more to cost than money. But every regulation has a cost. Sometimes the cost is worth it, sometimes not. The arsenic regulation mentioned is not worth it, since it doesn’t enhance anyone’s health, requires regulation beyond naturally occurring levels and just seems a waste.
The regulations I mentioned that make it prohibitively expensive to build a pedestrian bridge cost both money and human health or lives. Let’s hope there is a really good reason to have them.
I repeat that I don’t oppose all regulations. I oppose the creation of a regulation as a reflexive response to every problem. If you are regulating stupid things, you will miss the important things and create a general disrespect for laws. Sometimes the regulations are what are making people suffer.
Here is a regulation that I have never heard anyone call for.
Why are we feeding cattle, that which we use for beef, animal protein?
Why do we allow cattle that has been fed animal protein to be imported?
I don’t think that you could call cattle carnivores. As a point of fact, if you wanted to show an example of a herbivore, cattle would probably be at the top of the list.
I would think that any regulation that stopped this practice, no matter how expensive, is worth the cost.
Posted by: Rocky at March 1, 2005 01:16 AMGood one Rocky. And why is it OK to import mad cows from Canada, but not prescription drugs?
Jack, I totally agree with your main point. Regulations should be good. They need to be constantly reviewed for relevance and effectiveness. I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with platitudes like that.
It’s when you start talking about specific regulations that the activists and the coprorate campaign donors and lobbyists make things interesting.
I didn’t only say that regulations should be good. They also should be measured against their costs and benefits and the costs and benefits of doing nothing. Doing nothing should be the default option and the burden of proof on the regulation. If I come into your house and demand you change your behavior is a way that will cause you inconvenience and expense, the burden should be on me to tell you why, not on you to tell me why not.
A simple triage:
If a regulation creates more benefit than cost, it is good.
If a regulation creates more cost than benefit, it is bad.
If a regulation creates similar amounts of both cost and benefit, it is a waste and it is bad. The arsenic water regulations promulgated at the end of the Clinton Administration are a waste. They sound good, but accomplish nothing at a cost.
Those imposing regulations often talk about the benefits, but neglect the costs or they break the costs down to a ridiculous extent. “It only costs every American a minute of his time a day or that is only five cents a hour.” When you add these things up, they get to be very large numbers.
The burden of proof should always be on the regulator to show that he is not causing greater aggregate harm than good. No regulation should be permanent, since conditions change. And we should be very careful to whom we delegate the power to make regulations. Besides those things, I don’t have much of a problem.
This is in reponse to the good and bad of regulation (to no one in particular)
I live out by Yellowstone Park and before Clinton left office he passed a much sought after ban on 2 stroke snowmobiles in the park. There was much outrage from the residents of the nearby communities who rely on the park trails for income. On the other side there has been outrage from park enthusiasts about how 2 stroke motors are noise polluting, air polluting wildlife endangering vehicles.
This issue goes to the heart of regulation. There is scientific evidence to backup the fact that 2 stroke motors pollute much more than 4 stroke motors. There is also no argument about the noise pollution from either side. The wildlife endangerment can be argued by both sides.
Here is the debate. Which side do stand on.
a) the rights of the entrepeneur and his livelyhood
b) regulation and this case banning the 2 stroke engine from the park
The snowmobile industry has known about this proposed ban for many years and have put out 4 stroke engines which are much friendlier to the environment. The local business owners have also known about the proposed ban and should have prepared better stocking newer cleaner running snowmobiles.
I believe a judge just overturned the ban last November since he said was a biased, prejudged, political move but the issue is far from over which to me sounds like a pretty biased and prejudged ruling.
Here are a couple of more random thoughts on the subject.
a) Clinton probably shouldn’t have shoved ban through on his last days in office.
b) Bush said when he took office that he would overturn it…..and did
Anyway, this is a hot topic and seems to be a concrete example for the topic that is being discussed.
I would love to hear some comments.
Posted by: liberalone at March 1, 2005 02:00 PMJack,
I am just wondering if you are contradictory in this affect. You seem to disapprove of regulation in which the costs outweigh the benefit of the regulation that can do wonders for society; whatever the case may be. Being that I am currently reading the 9-11 Commission Report and their idealistic viewpoints in reformation, how do you feel about massive airport regulation? We all know that it will keep us safe but you know the costs involved in regards to customer satisfaction and customer safety. I am curious because I sense you have a bias for corporate protection yet in anyother avenue; you would approve of regulation as long as it doesn’t affect the Bush Administration nor their friends.
I don’t have a partisan dog in this fight. I just don’t like rules that we don’t need and think that the burden of proof should be on those that want to limit the freedom of others. There are so many special interest groups that try to get a regulation for their pet project by creating false fear or false hope.
Yellowstone
I have a bias against anything motorized. I ride my bike to work. I walk where I can and I don’t ride the elevator less than seven floors and I would not allow anyone else to ride if I made regulations. I don’t care for hedonists and in that way I would also limit obesity in the U.S. I cross country ski and generally dislike snowmobiles. But that is just my opinion. I wouldn’t really try to impose my particular ideas on others (although they would be better off if I did).
In the real world you have to balance the needs of everyone. Noise and pollution are legitimate concerns and so is access. I doubt that I would ban snowmobiles, but I would require quieter models and restrict their trails and time of use. Regulations should represent such compromises.
Airports
I don’t find the airport restrictions that onerous, considering the consequences. I get checked special almost all the time. I don’t know why. I would actually increase some regulations and think they should limit carry on luggage more. People carry on way too much. I also support background checks on passengers when they get their tickets. This is an area where I think strict regulation is needed. People shouldn’t complain, however, when the prices rise and convenience falls because of it.
Leon
By the way, if a regulation really does wonders for society, the benefits probably overcome the costs. If not, it doesn’t do wonders.
Posted by: Jack at March 1, 2005 08:00 PMI didn?t only say that regulations should be good. They also should be measured against their costs and benefits and the costs and benefits of doing nothing. Doing nothing should be the default option…
That’s what I meant by good, Jack.
Your triage is, again, a platitude that no one will argue against.
Now, when you mention specifics, like Clinton’s proposed regulation on arsenic levels in public drinking water, then we’ve got something to fight over,
In announcing her decision to adopt the Clinton proposal, Whitman explained, “I said in April that we would obtain the necessary scientific and cost review to ensure a standard that fully protects the health of all Americans, and we did that, and we are reassured by all of the data that significant reductions are necessary. As required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, a standard of 10 ppb protects public health based on the best available science and ensures that the cost of the standard is achievable.”Posted by: American Pundit at March 2, 2005 11:22 AM
Another regulation I would like to see is a national opt-in program.
That would allow those that just can’t live without spam, or sales calls during dinner to have a voice.
I don’t understand why anyone would assume that I would be interested in hearing their drivel, unless I opted-in of course.
If Clinton people thought this regulation was so important, cheap and needed, why did they wait until January 22, 2001, the very last minute possible, to enact it?
Posted by: Jack at March 2, 2005 03:15 PMJack asked:
If Clinton people thought this regulation was so important, cheap and needed, why did they wait until January 22, 2001, the very last minute possible, to enact it?
I can only guess at the answer to that, but I’d guess it was the same lack of spine that was exhibited over and over again during the Clinton years. (Starting out when he caved on gays in the military with the lame “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy) That lack of spine owed a lot to his and the Democrats’ indebtedness to big business, second only the the Republicans’ indebtedness to same.
Jack, that was Christine Todd Whitman that I quoted. After further, further review, Bush’s EPA enacted it. Clinton was right to propose it. The timing was politics.
I think that regulation is actually a good example of the triage you were talking about. A well-defined problem was recognized. A cost/benefit analysis was done (and done again). And a decision was made based on the best data available.
Periodic reassessments should be done to check the effectiveness and the need for continued regulation. Luckily, that’s built into the system. There will always be some special interest to challenge every law.
Walker, one man’s lack of spine is another man’s willingness to unite the moderate majority so progress can be made together as a nation.
Because of Clinton’s willingness to compromise, gays can proudly serve their country as long as they don’t make a big deal about being gay while they’re doing it. Had Clinton insisted on openly allowing gays in the military, it would probably have resulted in a complete loss and a purge. I think he took that issue as far as it could be taken at the time.
Posted by: American Pundit at March 3, 2005 10:34 AMAP:
Sure there was huge institutional resistance to gays in the military, but Clinton was the Commander in Chief, and he could have stuck to his principles and used it as a great opportunity for statesmanship at the national level on an issue that has become more divisive than it needs to be.
He should have addressed the nation and acknowledged frankly the deep moral repugnance which homosexuality represents for many in our nation. The acceptance of individuals who consider themselves to be gay is not equivalent to condoning their lifestyle, but is necessitated by the need to make use of the contributions they have to make as capable human beings quite separate from their sexual orientation. The military would not abandon its insistence on strict adherence to discipline in the behavior of its members, but the time has past when it should insist on lip service to declaring uniform sexual proclivities when such insistence is well known to cause dishonesty. Soldiers need not all think alike and desire alike in order to serve a common mission.
Posted by: Walker at March 6, 2005 12:15 AM
