Rein in Rand Paul
Posted April 6, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Health and the Environment, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, U.S. Law and Policy
In the middle of his campaign for U.S. Senate last summer, Rand Paul expressed in blunt terms his view of the controversial coal mining practice that has made mountain lovers unlucky in Kentucky. As reported by Details magazine in its profile of the candidate:
Paul believes mountaintop removal just needs a little rebranding. "I think they should name it something better," he says. "The top ends up flatter, but we're not talking about Mount Everest. We're talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here.
In a TV interview a little while later he explained his support for mountaintop removal, saying: "I don’t think anyone’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there."
During his successful Senate run Rand also made headlines when he stated that incidents like the deadly Upper Big Branch mine explosion in West Virginia are unavoidable -- he actually invoked the phrase "accidents do happen" -- and therefore tighter regulations on the mining industry are unnecessary.
During a recent hearing on the one-year anniversary of the deadly mine disaster, Sen. Paul (R-KY) reportedly argued against a new rule that would limit miners' exposure to coal dust, which causes black-lung disease, saying that the regulation would be too "burdensome." As reported by the Courier-Journal:
Sen. Rand Paul questioned the need Thursday for new federal new coal-mining rules to reduce black-lung disease, despite federal figures showing the illness has been on the rise in recent years, killing about 1,500 miners annually. [...]
"Every regulation doesn't save lives," Paul said at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "There is a point or a balancing act between when a regulation becomes burdensome and our energy production is stifled. We have to assess the cost."
Paul said during the hearing that the government had done "a pretty good job" in recent decades of reducing the incidence of black lung - an often incurable and fatal disease caused by breathing years of coal dust.
But figures from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health show a spike in black lung rates in recent years.
As offensive and outrageous as his comments are, they are reflective of Paul's deep disdain for the role of government in safeguarding American workers and citizens. Indeed, the senator's virulent anti-regulatory streak explains why he has introduced legislation to overturn current and block future federal regulations that ensure our health and safety. His bill is called the "Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act" -- commonly referred to as the REINS Act. (As in to "rein" in government, get it?)
Sen. Paul's legislation is explicitly designed to make it much more difficult to implement safeguards, including those that protect public health, the environment, and food safety. His bill would kill any significant safeguard that both houses of Congress did not approve in 70 days. Requiring such second-guessing by Congress of every potential public health advance would shift decision-making from experts to politicians; allow Congress to undermine existing laws without amending them; and enable a majority in one House of Congress to void legal protections, dispensing with the role of the other body and the President.
The REINS Act may seem ridiculous but it represents a very real threat to all of us. Here's a handy analysis of the bill by my colleague (and Rand Paul look-alike -- seriously!) John Walke. And here's a short video overview to learn more.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
hebintn — Apr 7 2011 09:31 AM
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but REINS proponents would basically throw out much of what the Constitution stands for. We're set up for consensus rule. So often we may not agree with what the result that issues from government, but if this act became law, absolutely NOTHING would ever get done.
Eitan — Apr 7 2011 09:37 AM
Your views are a classic example of the fallacy of the seen and the unseen. You see the apparent positive effects of government regulation, but don't appreciate the costs. When you advocate regulation, you are merely telling some worker, "You may not work at this job. You see, you're not capable of making these sorts of decisions for yourself so the government will make them for you." You are _not_ providing more opportunities for people. Now if you were advocating for more information to be made available, then that may be defensible. In the mean time, why don't you go into business and provide the kinds of opportunities you'd rather decree that others should provide?
Brian — Apr 7 2011 10:12 AM
Except, Eitan, that analysis after analysis shows that in most cases, especially with regard to environmental protections, the benefits of these standards far outweigh the costs. Sometimes, benefits far outweigh the costs.
Eitan — Apr 7 2011 10:50 AM
The costs are unseen and hence unmeasurable. What are the costs of the jobs which aren't created? What are the costs of the new products which aren't brought to market? If the benefits outweigh the costs then there is no problem in creating these standards in the market. Instead of operating through the force of government, try creating a business to bring about these better ideas! I'm not being facetious. This is happening today with consumer preferences for "greener" products finding outlets. Look at the computer industry which has been removing toxins from their products making them more and more recyclable, or think about all the banks and utilities and their move to "paperless" billing. The incentives to improve our lot exist independent of government. I don't object to your ends, just your means. By the way, I would be very happy to read some of those analyses you mentioned with an open mind. Regards.
John Liffee — Apr 7 2011 11:10 AM
@Eitan: try this, for starters.