Government that gives you specific guidelines on how you operate your business, workplace safety rules, the type of product that it wants to see as to quality and safe use, the minumum pay requirements... I am quite sure that business interests operating in this country would indeed grumble over "social democracy" of the European style as expressed by Charles Krauthammer. However, while those businesses have grumbled over "too much regulation" and then started moving their operations overseas in order to avoid all that; we have ultimately letters to the editors such as this one:
Just in the last year, we have had salmonella scares for lettuce, tomatoes, spinach and now peanuts. The Chinese have sent us lead painted toys for our children to play with and poisonous milk (melamine) for our children to enjoy.Agencies failing us
I've heard people blame farmers, the factories and the Chinese. Put the blame where it belongs: on the ineffective bureaucracies of the USDA and the FDA. How much do you want to bet that there is a USDA tag on the side of the peanut butter jar. It's being sent to hospitals, nursing homes, schools and prisons. You can't sell products in the U.S. without approval from the USDA and/or the FDA.
These bumbling agencies are in place and paid for by the American people to keep us American people safe from tainted food and tainted products.
Why not create some more government agencies so that they can maim and kill Americans too? These government agencies have become a burden and a strain on the American taxpayer.
Why do we pay these agencies when they really don't care about what they're paid to do? Our government is failing all around us. Let's not even mention the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Dave Stevens
Spokane
Besides being a touch hysterical, this letter does present some valid arguments. Problem is, that in the GW years, the regulating agencies that Mr. Stevens gives a major thumbs down on were underfunded to begin with, understaffed and essentially an extension of the business interests they were supposed to regulate. The only problem with this letter is that Mr. Stevens waited until now to write this letter and denounce all agencies for failures just because of the political decisions made by the last administration at a time when a new administration has barely come into office. Mr. Stevens could have written this letter even a year ago. But given the tone of for what are we paying these agencies... Well now, the presumption is to simply get rid of them altogether, and I assume that the American people can take even more of a chance with their medicines, durable products, as well as food. The gvt funded highly regulated "private sector" that Mr. Krauthammer does much whining about well now...
I hope he doesn't have any money in a bank that failed recently. That the merchandize he bought at a high end store wasn't made as cheaply as possible in Bangledesh and sold at a high mark up price under a name brand. That he actually did get what he paid for. That the car besides being made in America isn't being recalled for faulty parts. Or as demonstrated in prior years, having a tendency to blow up on you if hit just right. How about the house he owns? Can he trust that it wasn't built with shoddy materials and priced much higher for the type of work and material that went into it? The bridge he drives on, doesn't face the immediate threat of collapse. The store he enters with a heavy snow load on the roof, the roof itself will bear the burden quite well. But well, with all those business friendly legislatures and city gvts in place, costumer friendly products and services literally, getting what you paid for, isn't necessarily a fact. Having regulations effectively enforced and you are more likely to get what you pay for.
As for gvt funding. I recall during the Reagan era that Senator Jack Kemp among others pushed from the federal gvt a desire to incentivize business interests to enter areas of high poverty and set up shop. What would it take for businesses to do that? Tax breaks? Direct funding? Don't recall that Krauthammer said anything about such a "social democracy" during the Reagan era. Well, President Obama is certainly direct funding business interests today to encourage new technology and reduce the poverty levels in this nation. To literally incentivize those businesses to help bring this country forward into the 21st century. That wouldn't be the first time in this nation's history that this happened of course. The federal gvt provided a railway transportation grid during the Lincoln era that was ultimately a useful tool of the private sector to transport goods and services across the nation. Lincoln being a Republican, could he be accused of "social democracy?" The federal gvt under Eisenhower made possible our national freeways and bridges. Ultimately, the private sector made use of the same transportation grid to better deliver goods and services across the nation. Could Eisenhower be accused justly of "social democracy?" Eisenhower was a Republican. Oh, I see, we reserve such accusations for the Democrats in high office.
I hope he doesn't have any money in a bank that failed recently. That the merchandize he bought at a high end store wasn't made as cheaply as possible in Bangledesh and sold at a high mark up price under a name brand. That he actually did get what he paid for. That the car besides being made in America isn't being recalled for faulty parts. Or as demonstrated in prior years, having a tendency to blow up on you if hit just right. How about the house he owns? Can he trust that it wasn't built with shoddy materials and priced much higher for the type of work and material that went into it? The bridge he drives on, doesn't face the immediate threat of collapse. The store he enters with a heavy snow load on the roof, the roof itself will bear the burden quite well. But well, with all those business friendly legislatures and city gvts in place, costumer friendly products and services literally, getting what you paid for, isn't necessarily a fact. Having regulations effectively enforced and you are more likely to get what you pay for.
As for gvt funding. I recall during the Reagan era that Senator Jack Kemp among others pushed from the federal gvt a desire to incentivize business interests to enter areas of high poverty and set up shop. What would it take for businesses to do that? Tax breaks? Direct funding? Don't recall that Krauthammer said anything about such a "social democracy" during the Reagan era. Well, President Obama is certainly direct funding business interests today to encourage new technology and reduce the poverty levels in this nation. To literally incentivize those businesses to help bring this country forward into the 21st century. That wouldn't be the first time in this nation's history that this happened of course. The federal gvt provided a railway transportation grid during the Lincoln era that was ultimately a useful tool of the private sector to transport goods and services across the nation. Lincoln being a Republican, could he be accused of "social democracy?" The federal gvt under Eisenhower made possible our national freeways and bridges. Ultimately, the private sector made use of the same transportation grid to better deliver goods and services across the nation. Could Eisenhower be accused justly of "social democracy?" Eisenhower was a Republican. Oh, I see, we reserve such accusations for the Democrats in high office.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment