here-for-the-archive asked: What are your thoughts on Rand Paul "legislation that would strengthen safety rules of oil and gas pipelines, despite the fact that the bill has industry support." (A quick look at the Rand Paul tag will get you links) Is it just Senator Paul trying to prove that "Anything Government can do, the free market can do better"?
This was originally posted on my blog, here. It has comments if you wish to reply without a reblog.
Well, from what I’ve read, Senator Paul didn’t really discuss his reasons for opposing the bill, which is presumably why you’re hoping I can read his mind. I can’t, but I can provide a two big reasons why he might have taken this position — and why I would have done the same in his place.
First, yes, some of it is undoubtedly philosophical. I — and Sen. Paul — do think that the free market does nearly everything better than the government can. That said, it’s important to recall that what we have today is corporatism, or crony capitalism, not the free market.
Second, speaking of crony capitalism, if the industry is all so completely in favor of this legislation, why does it need to happen at all? Why don’t they just make these safety adjustments themselves? Are we seriously to believe that the situation is a bunch of corporations are saying “These safety measures are important and necessary. We really want to make our equipment more safe in this manner. But we won’t do it unless you pass a law saying we should.”
I’ll give you a hint: We shouldn’t believe that, because it’s not what’s happening here. From the Huffington Post:
Industry is eager for Congress to pass a bill this year partly because the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is already working on new safety rules. They’d rather Congress provide direction to regulators as to what those rules should look like than leave the matter entirely up to the Obama administration.
So this bill isn’t at all about whether or not the safety regulations are implemented. That’s a settled point regardless. It’s a question of who gets to spell out the details: bureaucrats or Congress.
Bureaucrats don’t run for office. They don’t take campaign donations from companies. Congressional representatives do. Not that bureaucrats aren’t corruptible, but are you starting to get an idea of why this isn’t just about safety?
