Story Comments

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

I am pointing fingers at the government--the ones in government who control those regulatory agencies, as opposed to the agencies themselves.

The Republican agenda--smaller government at any cost--has been to make government smaller by getting rid of federal agencies since the Reagan days. It started and continued with those agencies over which the president exerts complete control, as they help enforce regulations that protect the public. (The executive branch of government's primary purpose is to enforce the laws passed by Congress.) This is why agencies have been getting smaller and weaker since the 1980s.

But with that said, Before G.W. Bush was president, you never saw people appointed to head up such agencies who saw it as their purpose to destroy the agency, like Nancy Nord, head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who actually refused the money Congress was offering to give her commission to hire more inspectors.

And before Bush, you never saw those charged with protecting consumers against unscrupulous business practices take the attitude that the businesses they regulate are their clients--those agencies are supposed to protect the public FROM abuses by business, not protect business at every turn. (That's what the Dept. of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are for.)

In other words, the Republican party has been trying to take your advice for decades, and Bush has slashed funding and resources to these agencies more than any other president. Wonder of wonders, that has NOT solved the problem, and has NOT made us more safe.

The agencies' bureaucracy is NOT the problem. The lack of support, funding and competent management from the White House IS the problem.

Maybe it's time to hire competent consumer advocates to lead those agencies, and give them the resources to actually allow them to do their jobs.

0 Replies