"Tool of Big Business"

Great Debates
1

I’ve heard a lot of Bush policies dismissed because Bush supposedly is a “tool of big business.” As in, the only reason Bush is doing the things he is doing is because “big business” is giving him marching orders.

Just saying that Bush is doing something because he’s a “tool of big business” is not an intelligent statement and it allows the person saying it to feel smug and smart while completely letting them off the hook about debating the merits of a certain action.

Now I’m not saying that liberals are alone doing this. Conservatives are just as bad when they say liberals are “in the pockets of trial lawyers” or are “anti-family” or they “hate America.” But since I’m a conservative libertarian and since I’m starting this thread and since the most we hear of this sort of motive-questioning today comes from those who are unhappy with Bush (naturally, this is the most common because Bush is president and thus the biggest target), let’s stick with that for a while.

Simply saying that a public official is taking an action because he or she is “a tool of big business” or “in the pockets of trial lawyers” means absolutely nothing. What you are basically saying is that if someone disagrees with you, then they are either stupid or corrupt. It fails to take into consideration that two reasonable, uncorrupt people can have two widely differing views on issues. I disagree with my girlfriend on a lot of issues, is she in the pocket of the trial lawyers? No, so why would I think that a politician who holds similar views must be paid off to think that way?

Why do people feel the need to question Bush’s motives? If you disagree with his policies, fine. There is plenty to disagree about (I don’t like many of them myself). Just because you don’t like what he does, this does not automatically mean he’s corrupt, though, or working to implement the agenda of “big business.” There are very good policy arguments for everything he does, and if you disagree with the policy that does not mean that everyone who agrees with the policy is stupid or corrupt.

This sort of name-calling and motive-questioning just devalues our political discourse.

2

Because it’s a time-tested tradition in all political debates to question the other guy’s motives? :wink:

The problem is that “good” is relative, and is counterweighed by the “bad”. Drilling for oil in ANWR, for instance, has various factors associated with it, and the disagreements boil down to (a) which factors are “good” and “bad,” and (b) whether the “good” items outweigh the “bad” ones.

3

At the risk of repeating myself:

Draft of Air Rule Is Said to Exempt Many Old Plants **
[/QUOTE]

If you have another reasonable explanation for this action besides “tool of big business”, I would like to hear it.

4

If forced to upgrade the plants, the businesses might decide it’s not worth the expense and just shut the plant down instead, causing people to lose their jobs. Not only are those jobs saved, the money could be reinvested in the business, thus creating more jobs.

Is that a reasonable enough explaination for you? I’m not defending this legislation, I’m just trying to show that it’s not as one-sided as you seem to think. To just assume that everything your political opponents do is part of some nefarious back-room dealing rather than looking at the bigger picture is not reasonable, IMHO.

5

Your explanation just proves that motivation for this regulation holds the health of big business in higher regard than the health of the citizens.

My point stands.

6

Fear,

I can’t speak about the new regulations (not even released) on New Source Review, but I can speak a little about the first set of regulations about New Source Review proposed by the Bush Administration last year. It is this proposal the new set of regulations mentioned by the New York Times are modifying. They sound roughly the same, though.

One, let me just start by saying that if you only get your information on any complicated matter such as pollution regulations from the news media, then you are not getting a complete picture. Any reporter will not do justice to the story he or she is doing. I don’t think it’s intentional, but very few reporters have the depth of knowledge required to accurately explain complicated regulations of this detail. Have you looked on the EPA’s website about the old New Source Review regulations?

Two, I went to a brieing put on by the EPA on the first set of regulations. Sure, the EPA is a biased source, but they have a very good rationale for taking the action they do. I’ve read some other stuff on them, too, and it’s clear that there is a lot more to the story than the New York Times mentioned. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, and that’s the point I’m trying to make.

Let me try to give a rough justification for the new regulations:

These regulations were under review by the EPA for around a decade, and they were beginning to be rewritten under Clinton. The problem now is basically that older power plants have a hard time making upgrades without triggering costly mandates to install air pollution devices. Right now, old plants are exempt from the law because when the law was written, it was decided that it would cost too much to retrofit old plants and that these old plants would go out of business soon anyway. Well, the plants are still around, and owners find it hard to make necessary repairs to them. The owners can’t afford to retrofit them with the mandated pollution devices, but a lot of the time they can afford to fix the plants in such a way that pollution would be reduced by other means. They can’t make these repairs now. The new regulations would allow more of these repairs to be made. According to advanced modeling done by EPA, it’s likely the new regulations would actually reduce pollution.

Sure, environmental groups don’t like the new regulations. They want to see old plants replaced with newer, cleaner plants. That’s a legitimate debate to have, but it’s not the debate we are having here. These new rules simply allow more repairs to old plants to occur without triggering costly government mandates. The regulations make a lot of sense.

I happen to believe the new regulations are good; if you don’t, though, that’s fine. I don’t think you are a tool of the Natural Resources Defense Council. I just think you came to a different conclusion than I did. Questioning motives is a cheap substitute for actually talking about the issues.

7

I am fascinated to learn that the health of the citizens doesn’t require having steady employment, so that they may provide for such highly optional things as food, clothing, shelter, etc.

8

It’s not just an either/or issue, Fear. If the health of citizens was paramount, then the only position would be to allow ZERO pollution. Every individual looking at the problem would likely come up with a differnet level of pollution that is acceptable. Stating that someone is a “tool of big business” because they would allow more pollution than you would is just silly. I could just as easily (and just as unjustifiably) call you a “tool of the Sierra Club”.

9

Considering the fiasco surrounding Cheney’s Engergy Task Force, it’s hard to accept that Bush is anything but a tool.

10

Homebrew,

There were very legitimate issues surrounding the fact that those records should be kept private. The separation of powers is not a trivial thing which should be breached because of partisan politics.

There are two sides to that issue as well as pretty much any issue you want to name. Disagree with the assertions made by Cheney if you want, but you take the simple way out when you question motives.

11

Renob
You seem to be taking the position that a politician is honest until proven otherwise. I think we should assume that politicians (of both parties) are in the pockets of special interests until proven otherwise.

What does it take to be a successful politician?
Money? Absolutely (normally provided by special interests)
Organization? yes.
Charisma? very helpful.
Willingness to play “hardball”? definitely.
Willingness to feed the public self serving B.S.? Absolutely
Honesty? No.
Concern for the well-being of the people? No.

Successful politicians are the ones who get elected. I have watched many political campaigns and I can assure you they are not being elected on the basis of their honesty or concern for the well being of the people.

I have never heard of a case when the current administration didn’t take the pro-business side of an issue. Even though this may occasionally be the right side for the country as a whole, I find it safe to assume that the administration jumps when business snaps its fingers. The same goes for Democrats with trial lawyers, unions, etc.

The only president I remember who actually seemed to care about the public good (I remember back to Eisenhower) was Jimmy Carter, who probably got there on charisma and organization.

12

But the alternative is not just my opinion, it is a legally enacted statute, adopted by the Congress and signed by the president. This legislation was enacted after months of testimony by experts, and the Congress concluded that the levels of pollution allowed under the law were the proper balance between promoting commerce and protecting the public. For the EPA to simply set aside the these laws for the benefit of a few companies who have coincidentally made large campaign contributions to the president, is the very definition of a “tool of Big Business”. It’s one thing if you don’t like my opinion about clean air standards, but when Bush sets aside standards that were legally enacted by Congress, and does so without due process, he is weakening the constitution and our government that is based upon it. Is that the kind of government you approve of?

13

Cite?

14

I agree that not citing particular policies and why they are counterproductive to the citizenry amounts to little more than name calling, but is there any question that Bush’s environmental policies (touched on elsewhere in this thread and many others) are highly regressive? Considering the US produces a disproportionate share of pollution among industrial nations don’t we owe it to the rest of the world, not to mention ourselves, to cut back on the amount of waste and filth we produce? I realize that there are economic costs for “staying clean” but come on: the dumb son of a bitch (name calling!) doesn’t even believe in the Greenhouse Effect! I support your purpose in starting this thread, Rebon, but I agree with bullfighter in that we stand much more to lose being too easy on Bush than in being too hard.

15

Well here’s a summary of corporate crime that Bush and Cheney were directly involved with.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/501/501p14.htm

Renob, you don’t have to speculate on motives and resort to uninformed name-calling. You just have to go to the criminal record. I posted a long summary of Reagan’s criminal legacy on Austin’s related thread. It takes time for these investigations to develop, and you underestimate the power of political appointees to suppress the ability of the career bureacrats to do their job. I automatically suspect that the policies of any president (Reagan, Bush, or Clinton) are tainted by corporate kickbacks because I have never seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. It is not cynical, it is just realistic.

16

Great link, here’s another:

www.wage-slave.org/scorecard2.html

Jeremy Ulrey

17

And the US also produces a “disproportionate” share of goods and services. So where does that leave us?

18

I do indeed take that position. I’ve been around a lot of politicians from both parties and almost all have seemed to me to be honest. Sure, I don’t agree with Barbara Boxer’s policies, but I think she’s doing what she thinks is best for the country.

Also, what do you mean by “special interests”? That’s a word that gets thrown around a lot and it really has no meaning. Do you mean people who are petitioning the government for a redress of grievances? Aren’t politicians supposed to listen to these people? “Special interests” are just me and you, being represented in Washington. Of course, most of the time, when people say “special interests,” they mean everyone else, not their particular group.

This doesn’t make logical sense. True, the Bush Administration has many policies which are supported by business interests. Does that mean business interests cause the Bush Administration to enact these policies? No. Two people can support the same outcome for two totally different reasons. Many of the policies you call “pro business” are, in the opinion of many, good for the country. Less taxes and regulations lead to more jobs (even if you don’t agree with this, you must recognize this is a legitimate political belief). More jobs are good for the people of the U.S. You have to understand that policies which help business help the people employed by business. Sure, CEOs benefit from these policies, but so do their workers and the American people in general. To somehow think that the only reason anyone could support “pro-business” policies is because they are paid off is an assumption which has no basis in fact.

19

You don’t know what you are talking about. The regulations being changed by EPA were not enacted by Congress. They were regulations enacted by the EPA based on legislation passed by Congress. No administrative agency like the EPA can change the actual law; they can only change regulations they themselves promulgated. The level of upgrades a plant can make without triggering new pollution control devices (which is what we’re talking about here, not about “levels of pollution”) was something set by the EPA, not Congress. What the EPA makes, the EPA can change.

And changing these regulations doesn’t just benefit a “few companies who have coincidentally made large campaign contributions to the president.” One, companies can’t actually contribute to elections, but I get what you’re saying so I’ll let that slide. Two, this change would also benefit the environment because it would let plants upgrade to more environmentally efficient equipment without triggering costly regulations, which is not now allowed. Modeling done by the EPA shows this change would actually decrease pollution. Three, consumers would benefit from this change. If plants are forced to upgrade to the expensive environmental equipment, many would go out of business. This would raise rates for consumers because either new plants would have to be built or imported from other regions. Four, by keeping plants in business, people in the area would keep their jobs. People need jobs, and these old plants provide them. If you shut them down, a lot of people would be hurting.