CASE STUDIES IN DEREGULATION INSANITY

From CounterPunch:

Ignoring statistics that said a high percentage of truck accidents were caused by tired truck drivers, the department acted on an industry study that said only 2% of accidents were the fault of tired truck drivers and more than 80% the fault of passenger car drivers. Among other things, the new regulations increased the maximum driving hours from 60 to 77 over 7 consecutive days and from 70 to 88 over 8 consecutive days while increasing the time off required to 10 hours from 8. This was the first increase in the number of hours drivers were permitted to work in 60 years. Regulators declined to require new drivers to undergo additional training as had been suggested by safety groups.

The administration says the new regulations have saved money for businesses and consumers making it cheaper for goods to be moved across country. Safety is also improved they explain. By lengthening the number of hours experienced drivers are permitted to work even though tired, fewer new and inexperienced drivers are needed.

Click here for more.

Of course, some federal business regulations really are absurd, overly counterproductive, and don't even really accomplish what they're designed to do. The free market fundamentalists would have us believe that all regulations are like this. Obviously, this is not the case--in its relentless quest to achieve ever higher profits business would steamroll playgrounds full of five-year-olds if it could get away with it; often, it does get away with it, metaphorically at least, like in third world corporate sweatshops. Given the great power of greed, society must necessarily establish rules for how business is done, or things could easily get out of hand. Actually, the regulatory environment has become so lax under twelve years of Republican rule that things are out of hand. Nonetheless, the free market fundamentalists continue to push and push, backed by billions in corporate cash.

Now, like I said, such a discussion as this can get sticky, if only because, sometimes, these people have a point. That's why it's extremely important to insist that their arguments in favor of a given area of deregulation be spelled out in excruciating detail. "Good for business" just isn't enough. They must explain exactly how it's good for business, and why that's better than the health, safety, and financial welfare of American citizens. Often, I think, that's all it takes to have their rhetoric exposed for the bullshit it is. I mean, just take a look at the deregulation "argument" in the second paragraph above. That's pretty weak, if you ask me.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$