In Turnaround, Industries Seek U.S. Regulation

[babylonsister]

In Turnaround, Industries Seek U.S. Regulation

By ERIC LIPTON and GARDINER HARRIS
Published: September 16, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — After years of favoring the hands-off doctrine of the Bush administration, some of the nation’s biggest industries are pushing for something they have long resisted: new federal regulations.

For toys and cars, antifreeze and fireworks, popcorn and produce and cigarettes and light bulbs, among other products, industry groups or major manufacturers are calling for federal health, safety and environmental mandates. Some of those industries are abandoning years of efforts to block such measures, often in alliance with the Bush administration, which pledged to ease what it views as costly, unnecessary rules.

The consequences for consumers, though, are not yet clear. The tactical shift by industry groups is motivated by a confluence of self-interests: growing competition from inexpensive imports that do not meet voluntary standards, and a desire to head off liability lawsuits and pre-empt tough state laws or legal actions that were a response to laissez-faire Bush administration policies. Concerns that Democrats could soon expand their control in Washington have also prompted manufacturers or producers to seek regulations that they consider the least burdensome, regulatory experts say.

“There seems to be, at the moment, a fair amount of efforts under way by individual industries to put into statute what had either previously been voluntary consensus standards or industry goals,” said Rosario Palmieri, a regulatory lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers, which has often opposed government regulations. “This year, we have seen quite a bit of it.”

Rick Melberth, director of regulatory policy at OMB Watch, a Washington group that tracks federal regulatory actions, agreed. “I have never before seen so many industries joining a push for regulation,” Mr. Melberth said. “What we need to watch closely is if this will achieve a real increase in standards and public protections or simply serve corporate interests.”

Some industries and consumer groups are aligned in seeking the same regulations, though perhaps for different reasons. “It’s definitely a strange-bedfellow situation,” said Sarah Klein, a lawyer at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is seeking, along with grocery stores and produce growers, new requirements to prevent food-borne illnesses. “The voluntary system is not working from a food-safety perspective, and it’s creating real problems for the industry.”

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/washington/16regulate.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1189947816-phYcTW9H9YMLykQe2fygeA

[kurth]

1. "Their ultimate goal is regulation that protects them, not the public"

[babylonsister]

2. Self-serving to the end. nt

[skids]

3. Which wouldn't be quite as horrendous...

...if they weren't also congenitally short-sighted.

[treestar]

4. The bigger you get, the more you start wanting to prevent others

from competing with you.

This is the weakness of all regulation. It makes going into business or staying in business more expensive. Most small businesses fail for lack of capital. Every regulation increases the amount of capital needed. From making sure your employees pay their taxes, are legally in the U.S., pay their child support, all of it, using government to do this every little thing just adds up to one thing: only the people with money can afford to make money, and they end up in charge of us all, we wind up dependent on them.

There is some interest in having government involved, but we are going too far and making it so only the big corporations which we allegedly dislike the only possible employers, and the only ones who can start a new business.

And they are always neck deep in the regulatory process. Which isn't entirely corrupt, as each industry knows the most about what it does, and can vouch for unintended consequences of most regulation.