The fur’s been flying both in Wisconsin and Washington, DC lately over “regulations”, with a lot of caterwauling about anti-free market this and job-destroying that. But put the claws away, kitties, and let’s cut the catshit.
Do you trust that the brakes on your brand new car won’t fail you at 60 mph?
Or that the toy jewelry your three-year old is chewing on won’t land her in the hospital? How about knowing that the paycheck you deposited in the bank will still be there when you try to withdraw it next week? You have government regulation to thank.
“Regulations” are created to ensure that the basic things we do day-to-day will not kill us, sicken us or make us destitute. We are all at the benevolent receiving end of “regulations”. If there’s feces in your Big Mac, you’re equally screwed whether you’re a progressive or a tea-partier. Floodplains are very democratic, they will wash away badly placed mansions or shanties if you try to put them in a floodplain.
So, are regulations annoying? Certainly. But so are a contaminated Big Mac and a house that’s washed down the river. So we all agree some regulations should exist. And sometimes those regulations will affect people who make money building homes and selling Big Macs. But, when a politician begins to talk about how meddling government is destroying jobs, ask yourself: who is really benefiting? And who pays?
I’ve taken the liberty of translating some recent gibberish that’s appeared in the papers recently:
They say: "I want to slow or stop anti-free market regulations that kill jobs."
What it means: A job, any job, trumps human health and safety.
They say:“We want to find ways to streamline and minimize review times and strengthen this agency’s focus on customer service”.
What it means: Taxpayer: put up and shut up.
They say: Unelected agency bureaucrats are the problem
What it means: The problem is people who don’t have corporate lobbyists in their front office expecting payback for donations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Starving government authority and refusing to impose any costs on businesses means devaluing human health and safety to $0.”
I couldn’t have said it any better myself. Even though I’m a rat, I still weirdly care for you people
Friday, January 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All of the "new" rhetoric that the river rat mentioned has in fact been bolstered for many years by the efforts of the "chicago school of economics" --neo-liberalism. This hit the scene in a big way during the Reagan years and now because of global trade policies we are feeling the effects of --business first-people and environment second. Now only a mass movement of people can turn the tide....
ReplyDelete