Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The Bush League vs. States' Rights
Can I believe my eyes? Is The Bush league actually putting citizens' safety before corporate profits?
(The concept of federal-level regulations to prevent a "race to the bottom" is a good one. However, imposing federal regulations that revoke more effective state laws is not good.)
|
For the first time, the Bush administration is endorsing mandatory requirements for heightened security at chemical plants, many of which homeland defense experts consider highlyvulnerable to catastrophic terrorist attack.Well, no - it turns out there's another reason for this surprising shift:
...
Until this week, administration officials had embraced the chemical industry's proposals for voluntary security precautions, though they had warned that the day might arrive when industry foot-dragging would compel a crackdown.
(Source: Washington Post Chemical Security Upgrades Are Urged, June 15, 2005.)
The chemical council has dropped its opposition to mandatory security in part because several states are drawing up their own chemical security laws, creating the danger of a hodgepodge of regulations, officials said.So, W and his Bush League minions plan to enact federal regulations (written by chemical industry lobbyists, no doubt) to supercede proposed (more effective) state regulations? What ever happened to the hazards of big government? Doesn't the Bush Administration still believe in States' Rights?
(Source: Chemical Security Upgrades Are Urged)
(The concept of federal-level regulations to prevent a "race to the bottom" is a good one. However, imposing federal regulations that revoke more effective state laws is not good.)
