One of the main priorities for the American Legislative Exchange Council is the elimination of regulations and regulatory departments at the state and federal levels. From an ALEC perspective regulations create additional costs for their private sector members - that in turn reduces profit which in turn would reduce charitable contributions to ALEC.
I think when a lot of people read about ALEC's attempts of deregulation, we automatically think of the environment - air and water quality. I hope this diary will help you to see how incredibly dangerous ALEC's position on de-regulation is at every level of our existence.
Yesterday PR Watch released an article titled "Kids Eating Rat Poison Is an "Acceptable Risk" for ALEC" which stated:
An American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) member is defying Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules limiting the sale of rat poisons that pose dangers to children and the ecosystem. ALEC representatives say that kids eating rat poison is an "acceptable risk" that does not justify government intervention in the market.
"There are certain levels of acceptable risk in society," says Todd M. Wynn, director of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force, in an interview about the EPA rules with the Heartland Institute's Heartlander website. "And parents play an important role by weighing the potential risks and benefits of using a product."
"Unfortunately, EPA expands its reach into the American economy more and more each and every year," Wynn said
.
This is an example of how ALEC negates the issues of public safety in favor of beneficial situations for their corporate sector / private enterprise members.
Lo and behold – today - another example was published of ALEC’s total disregard for public safety has been published, written by the way by Eli Lehrer, Vice President of the Heartland Institute.
Here is an excerpt (my emphasis added):
During a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a task force on commerce, insurance, and economic development, which I advise, considered a proposal from the Goldwater Institute that would have radically changed professional licensing. (Like all ALEC model legislation, the bill, of course, had no actual legal authority.)
Essentially, the model bill proffered by Byron Schlomach, director of Goldwater’s Center for Economic Prosperity, would have more-or-less ended all state-run professional licensing for everything and replaced it with a system of purely private licensing for everything. Under the proposed model bill, any private entity could issue a license to do anything on any grounds they decided on and, if someone forged a private license, the government could put that person in jail. (I asked if it would apply to brain surgery and Schlomach said “yes.”)
Thus, I spoke against it even though I am very sympathetic to the idea. (The task force voted unanimously to refer it for further study.)
While the author goes on to say that some occupations should be licensed, he goes on to make asinine statements such as (my emphasis):
If one accepts that the government has any role in promoting public health and safety, it should probably have a role in some types of licensing.
… the state should have some role in preemptively maintaining public health and safety
Since there’s no public health risk in getting a bad haircut, however, there’s no reason that people who go to work as hair stylists should actually need to know how to cut hair. That’s for customers to decide.
... replacing the need to attend beauty school with a health and safety course of a few hours would open up reasonably well paid jobs to lots of people.
Much licensing is pretty reasonable as it is and, were it eliminated, we would see very little change from most perspectives.
And this statement really comes across as an ideal ALEC philosophy statement – especially when it comes to the issue of product liability and consumer protection.
I see a strong theoretical argument for allowing just about anyone to represent someone else in a civil court case.
In less than 24 hours we have two perfect examples of how ALEC has no regard for you and me. The only concern that ALEC has is creating favorable situations for their corporate sector / private enterprise members while showing total disregard for the safety of the people of the United States.
In addition, it should be noted that this “model legislation” would result in the elimination of funding to the state and eradication of state employee jobs.
A very quick review of Minnesota statutes and couple of State licensing sites came up with the following statements (my emphasis added):
326.02 LICENSURE OR CERTIFICATION.
Subdivision 1. Licensure or certification mandatory. In order to safeguard life, health,
and property, and to promote the public welfare, any person in either public or private capacity
The Minnesota Department of Human Services, in cooperation with counties, licenses approximately 24,100 service providers and monitors and investigates their compliance with Minnesota laws and rules. The purpose of licensing is to protect the health, safety and rights of those receiving services by requiring that providers meet minimum standards of care and physical environment.
Licensors conduct license inspections for new and existing programs, monitor compliance with license requirements, process variances to licensing rules, conduct complaint investigations and provide limited technical assistance. When problems are found, licensors may issue correction orders and fines or place a program’s license on conditional status or suspend or revoke a license.
There is something very comforting to me that I know that there is someone (the State) out there who is concerned with meeting minimum standards of care and physical environment and monitoring compliance with licensing requirements and conducting complaint investigations “In order to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare”. A "privatized licensing agency" wouldn't give a damn my "life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare" (and yet - my tax dollars would probably be paying for it).
The reason this is important goes back to a statement that I have published previously which is extremely important when dealing with ALEC – the dichotomy between private sector profits and “concepts such as common interests, social justice, and long term economic and environmental sustainability”.
...most business people in public office cannot make the transition from thinking about short term profits and maximizing the self interests of businesses to thinking about acting in the best interests of all people, now and for future generations. All of their decisions and actions are based on or around the concept of money and the pursuit of profit in the shortest time possible. Concepts such as common interests, social justice, and long term economic and environmental sustainability are just not in their vocabulary. As discussed in earlier parts of this article, their brains are not developed to think that way.
Government is about operating society, not running a business to make money.
(The task force voted unanimously to refer it for further study.)
It’s too bad he didn’t give us the name of the ALEC “model legislation” – because this is one we HAVE to be watching for in the next year or so. Another piece of pro-business ALEC "model legislation - traveling from ALEC corporate sector members to ALEC legislators to our state legislatures.
I am absolutely certain that I don't want ALEC determining "acceptable risk" when it comes to my personal safety.
PLEASE!!!
All ALEC members must not be re-elected, elected or appointed to any position in the city, county, state or federal governments.