That
is the question.
Most
people realize that some local, state and federal regulations have
continued past their used by dates and should be eliminated. However,
just because a regulation increases costs for producers of goods and
services is an insufficient cause to repeal a rule.
Good
governance practice is to find the balance, not based on special
interests but on risk-benefit analysis that affects the most citizens
not, just a few.
1.
Slightly tainted meat and meat products will sicken very few people,
is undetectable by the consumer. Elimination of the controlling
inspection regulations would increase the profits for the producers
and increase the costs for healthcare.
2.
Removing regulations relating to food and drug quality would save big
drug companies billions for the already highly profitable industry.
3.
Eliminating mandatory seat belt and air bag installation on cars
would reduce costs for manufacturers and increase the earnings of
funeral parlors.
4.
Repealing the The
Dodd-Frank
Act
would
allow the investment banks and consumer services institutions
to
revert to the pre-2008 practices that came close to creating a
depression with
an unemployment rate of
10%.
5.
Doing
away with a regulation
aimed at preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby
streams won't
do much for folks living down stream but it will certainly help the
mine investor upstream. [too
late, already revered]
Paul
Hunter
No comments:
Post a Comment