Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Why bother caring?
- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 20, 2015 at 10:58 am #21117sdramParticipant
zach.carter@huffingtonpost.com
The Artful Dodger: Huh! A friend’s just an enemy in disguise. You can’t trust nobody.
House Republicans Just Let The Cat Out Of The Bag
WASHINGTON — Since taking control of the House in 2010, Republicans have crafted dozens of bills ostensibly devoted to “streamlining and simplifying” the federal government. They’ve pushed them through the lower chamber, promising to cut red tape and create jobs. But on Tuesday, they let the cat out of the bag. These bills, it turns out, are essentially efforts to undermine Wall Street reform and Obamacare while greenlighting pollution.
Much of the House GOP’s jobs package is devoted to legislation requiring various forms of “cost-benefit analysis” on new regulations. Critics, however, have repeatedly noted that agencies already have to perform a host of economic impact assessments before making rules. They argue that these bills are really only interested in emphasizing costs. The benefits of regulations, after all, tend to be longer-term and hard to quantify, while costs are relatively easy to figure out. When you curb pollution and give people access to health insurance, it saves lives — something far more difficult to assign a dollar value than the upfront costs to corporate interests.
House Republicans posted their budget bill Tuesday, and it includes a “statement of policy” — see page 123, Section 810 — that makes the critics’ points for them. It decries the “468,500 pages” of new regulations the Obama administration has promulgated, and claims that regulatory efforts are running up an annual $2.03 trillion tab on the public. There is no mention of any benefits, economic or otherwise, that have accrued from any rule.
After bemoaning these abstract costs, the GOP then makes clear what they’re really upset about: Obamacare, the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law and Environmental Protection Agency rules on carbon emissions from burning coal. No other legislation or regulatory initiative is mentioned. While the Republican budget bill decries “unnecessary red tape,” the only examples it can find of such inefficiency just happen to be the signature domestic policy achievements of the Obama administration.
“The House GOP budget enacts radical and extreme ‘regulatory reform’ measures that are better termed ‘deregulatory reform,'” Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate for the nonprofit group Public Citizen, told The Huffington Post this week. “If these measures were to become law, the public could expect… inaction on climate change and another Wall Street meltdown.”
Remarkably, this GOP push to gut Wall Street reform, repeal Obamacare and protect polluters has garnered Democratic support in both chambers of Congress. In the Senate, corporate-friendly lawmakers including Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) have co-sponsored Republican bills that seek to saddle regulators with additional cost-benefit requirements. In the House, several conservative Democrats — including Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), co-chair of the New Democrat Coalition — have voted for at least one version of the GOP attack on the regulatory state.
The strategy for using cost-benefit analysis to undermine regulators dates back to former House Speaker Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in the 1990s, and the GOP has tried to revive and revamp one of Gingrich’s key achievements in that vein during the current Congress.
While none of these Republican deregulation efforts have been enacted, the GOP has had tremendous success in the courts by pursuing the same line of attack with existing cost-benefit requirements. Conservative power lawyer Eugene Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has overturned key Dodd-Frank rules in court by insisting that agencies didn’t properly weigh the corporate costs of financial fairness or stability.
On the other hand, when it’s time to write new measures that deregulate industries, Republicans have tended to show some impatience with the economic analysis process — urging the Securities and Exchange Commission, for instance, to expedite rules deregulating Wall Street securities sales under the so-called JOBS Act.
March 20, 2015 at 11:50 am #21120PA RamParticipantI don’t care if it’s Democrats or Republicans, the truth is that they do NOT represent the people who elected them, the people of the country. They represent big money interests. Period. They are essentially doing their best to rig elections for the elite so they don’t have to worry much about the “little” people.
They are bought and paid for: owned.
They represent their owners.
That is not the American people.
Any idea that the people are part of some democratic process and are able to hold their representatives accountable is a joke.
With the help of a complicit media, they give us the ILLUSION that we still have a government by the people and for the people but it’s just an illusion. It doesn’t exist.
Like George Carlin said, sit back and laugh at the show.
Or cry.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
March 20, 2015 at 2:58 pm #21138sdramParticipantI know it’s just business as usual. Sometimes my mood dictates I outburst in a sigh of utter disgust. And, I agree PA – it’s not one party or the other. It’s just business as usual.
March 20, 2015 at 9:48 pm #21157wvParticipantI know it’s just business as usual. Sometimes my mood dictates I outburst in a sigh of utter disgust. And, I agree PA – it’s not one party or the other. It’s just business as usual.
I applaud your sigh
of utter disgust.Now, think about ‘why’
American ‘citizens’ keep
voting for Dems or Reps.
They dont have to.
Why do they continue
to do it, as the Titanic
sinks…w
v
—————————
“…In a society dominated by capitalist logics, people will generally see that
their interests are served by the election of candidates who are able to provide a
context in which business can be successful. They tend to vote this way because
of capitalism’s central conundrum: getting a job from a capitalist is the most
likely way one can get what is needed to survive in a society dominated by
capitalist processes.
Elections then serve the owning class in two powerful ways. They help
stabilize the capitalist economic structure by putting people in power who will
prioritize protecting the conditions for capital accumulation. And elections also
help to legitimate the system by showing that the majority has freely chosen
capitalist priorities. Only if anti-capitalist forces are able to transform society
such that people’s well being is not dependent upon capitalists to provide them the resources they need to survive, will working class people ever vote to get rid
of capitalism. Przeworski shows that we don’t need a functionalist theory of the state that posits an all powerful bourgeoisie which is able to always get its needs met by the state, or a complex theory of how the masses are tricked by a false
consciousness set in place by bourgeois forces, to understand why European
voters have not chosen to abolish capitalism. Instead the explanation for why
people choose capitalism is quite simple: it is in their short-term self-interest.
Przeworski’s analysis helps us to understand the real place that
challenging capitalism is difficult. The problem is not simply that capitalism is
protected by a “capitalist state.” His analysis shifts our attention from the state to
the economic dependencies created by capitalism. This analysis leaves us with an understanding of the state as an important site of contestation, but not as the
central fulcrum point for anti-capitalist action.….”
Cynthia Kaufman -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.