-Caveat Lector-
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30145-2000Dec5.html>
A Blizzard of Regulation
Wednesday, December 6, 2000; Page A34
THE CLINTON administration is leaving town in a blizzard of
regulation whose effect will be to extend its influence well
beyond its term. Every administration leaves a few such parting
gifts, but rarely so many of such importance. The Labor
Department, a week after the election, ended years of discussion
and published, over the protests of business groups, a so-called
ergonomics standard governing repetitive stress and similar
workplace injuries across the entire economy. The Forest Service
intends to impose a near-ban on further road-building and
timbering in the remaining roadless areas of the national
forests. Other pending rules have to do with the chemistry of
diesel fuel, medical privacy and the possible designation of much
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee as a national monument,
which could be a bar to oil drilling.
Each of the regulations has vigorous opponents--employers, the
timber, trucking and oil industries, health insurers. They
complain not just that in their view the rules are wrongheaded
but that the tactic of issuing them while headed out the door is
unfair--an abuse of lame-duck status meant at least in part to
hobble or embarrass a possible Bush administration by bequeathing
to it policies with which it is known to disagree.
This time around, however, unlike in the past, the opponents have
a weapon. A procedure has been put in place whereby they can
force an early vote in the next Congress to rescind the
regulations. They already have threatened to use it against the
forest protection and and ergonomics rules. We favor the taking
of the votes, irrespective of our views of the regulations
themselves (we strongly favor some and have reservations about
others). The regulations will be the stronger if they survive. If
not, the politicians who strike them down can explain themselves
to the voters. In matters as sweeping as these, the voters are
the right court of appeal.
The procedure for disapproving major regulations was established
in 1996. It was part of an effort by the new Republican Congress
to weaken the regulatory process or ease the regulatory burden,
depending on your point of view. Congress has always had the
power to pass legislation repealing any regulation. This merely
gave such resolutions of disapproval special parliamentary
status--protected them from filibuster in the Senate, for
example. Defenders of regulation say even that is wrong--that
once the power to regulate is granted, its every application
ought not have to be defended in a political forum in which money
and influence too often matter more than the public interest.
They're right that there's a risk, but our sense is that worthy
regulations will prevail, and that a right of disapproval
strengthens the regulatory process. Too many politicians in both
parties try to have it both ways on regulation. They support the
laudable goals--clean air, clean water, a safe and healthy
workplace--while balking at the cost of achieving them. They pass
the statutes, then denounce as the handiwork of somehow evil
bureaucrats the regulations to which the statutes give rise. In
doing so, they undercut both political accountability and faith
in governmental action that they themselves have undertaken. But
they can't deny responsibility for regulations that they have an
expedited right to disallow.
Major regulations tend to be more consequential than many
statutes. Some are based in part on science, but in the end
almost all are at least in part political judgments on which
Congress ought to vote if it disagrees. We look forward to the
fight.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
