Woolleybugger
Mayor
The topic of regulations comes up constantly from both the left and the right as either a source of good or as a prime factor in our national economic decline. I have two very different views on regulations based upon who is doing the regulating. At the national level, regulations tend to solve or address problems that are foundational to a national problem. At the local level, they attempt to solve problems in a small geographic area that are unique or appear to be unique to a certain locale.
I would argue that every regulation enacted by both groups are either a reaction to a problem or anticipate a problem which can be avoided by regulations. At the national level, pollution standards for air and water were enacted because prior to the 1960s, we were polluting our nation on a daily basis to the point where it was no longer tolerable. There was broad consensus to clean up the Hudson River or to find a way to stop acid rain. In this case, regulations came after the fact and did indeed clean up our waterways and air. How much is enough? Well, some could argue that we wait until it gets too bad again and pass regulations only after it gets really bad again. This is how climate change legislation is being treated. Is this how a rational nation operates given what we know happened here prior to environmental legislation? Any of you see photographs of Pittsburgh in the 1890s? How about photos of raw sewage going into rivers and off beaches? Should we wait until the waters rise covering Florida and Manhattan before paying attention? I think rational people on both sides understand the folly of reacting after the fact when science and history show us a path forward. But how much regulation is enough or too much? This is the debate we should be having instead of one side refusing to even admit the problem exists keeping the other side from addressing it. The GOP needs to stop fighting common sense measures and start focusing on the best solutions and on defining what we expect the results to look like. This would put them in the drivers seat by making them rational decision makers who analyze data, bring together experts and then formulate solutions based upon certain constraints. Imagine if we made decisions like this instead of listening to Imhofe say it is all a hoax.
On the local level, most of us are directly affected by regulations that are passed by folks we see on the street not some nameless bureaucrat in Washington. But even these regulations are based on either a reaction to a problem or a desire to prevent a problem. Some are just passed to give one party or another a means to make money but I think most of them are passed with good intentions. But do we really need a helmet law for motorcyclists? Many argue that they are no longer free if someone forces them to wear one. That is true. But who pays for the man who is not wearing one that cracks his head open on the street? We all do. But can this really save us anything if we force everyone to wear a helmet? Ask your wife or mother if she thinks your little son should skateboard in a pool without one.
My point is that treating regulations as some block of cure all's or scourges is not really dealing with the way rational people should be handling them. Are some regulations not worth the cost of implementing them? My bet is yes but I have no data or instance proving it. I sure would love to see our elected officials do an analysis though and then propose a way of correcting them. How could anyone argue with this simple means of dealing with them?
The debate over regulations on Wall Street are a great example of how far away from a rational decision making model we have come as a nation. We have proof from the 1800s up until the Depression that unregulated banking and securities create massive financial upheavals, create and destroy wealth and endanger our nation. We have proof from 1936 to about 1980 that sound regulations work. We have further proof that if you repeal them, the same thing happens again just like it did prior to 1936. Why should we argue about these facts? They are facts not political opinions. How about the right and left accept the facts and then formulate a model that is the desired outcome and then work on regulations that create that desired outcome? Then review them and modify them as time goes on? Is that not a rational way of dealing with reality?
I would argue that every regulation enacted by both groups are either a reaction to a problem or anticipate a problem which can be avoided by regulations. At the national level, pollution standards for air and water were enacted because prior to the 1960s, we were polluting our nation on a daily basis to the point where it was no longer tolerable. There was broad consensus to clean up the Hudson River or to find a way to stop acid rain. In this case, regulations came after the fact and did indeed clean up our waterways and air. How much is enough? Well, some could argue that we wait until it gets too bad again and pass regulations only after it gets really bad again. This is how climate change legislation is being treated. Is this how a rational nation operates given what we know happened here prior to environmental legislation? Any of you see photographs of Pittsburgh in the 1890s? How about photos of raw sewage going into rivers and off beaches? Should we wait until the waters rise covering Florida and Manhattan before paying attention? I think rational people on both sides understand the folly of reacting after the fact when science and history show us a path forward. But how much regulation is enough or too much? This is the debate we should be having instead of one side refusing to even admit the problem exists keeping the other side from addressing it. The GOP needs to stop fighting common sense measures and start focusing on the best solutions and on defining what we expect the results to look like. This would put them in the drivers seat by making them rational decision makers who analyze data, bring together experts and then formulate solutions based upon certain constraints. Imagine if we made decisions like this instead of listening to Imhofe say it is all a hoax.
On the local level, most of us are directly affected by regulations that are passed by folks we see on the street not some nameless bureaucrat in Washington. But even these regulations are based on either a reaction to a problem or a desire to prevent a problem. Some are just passed to give one party or another a means to make money but I think most of them are passed with good intentions. But do we really need a helmet law for motorcyclists? Many argue that they are no longer free if someone forces them to wear one. That is true. But who pays for the man who is not wearing one that cracks his head open on the street? We all do. But can this really save us anything if we force everyone to wear a helmet? Ask your wife or mother if she thinks your little son should skateboard in a pool without one.
My point is that treating regulations as some block of cure all's or scourges is not really dealing with the way rational people should be handling them. Are some regulations not worth the cost of implementing them? My bet is yes but I have no data or instance proving it. I sure would love to see our elected officials do an analysis though and then propose a way of correcting them. How could anyone argue with this simple means of dealing with them?
The debate over regulations on Wall Street are a great example of how far away from a rational decision making model we have come as a nation. We have proof from the 1800s up until the Depression that unregulated banking and securities create massive financial upheavals, create and destroy wealth and endanger our nation. We have proof from 1936 to about 1980 that sound regulations work. We have further proof that if you repeal them, the same thing happens again just like it did prior to 1936. Why should we argue about these facts? They are facts not political opinions. How about the right and left accept the facts and then formulate a model that is the desired outcome and then work on regulations that create that desired outcome? Then review them and modify them as time goes on? Is that not a rational way of dealing with reality?
