Generally speaking, I oppose new regulations because they are very often overly burdensome and costly. But reversing these 'ancillary' regulations after years of negotiation with the concerned parties and reasonably predictable benefits for worker safety seems pretty fucking stupid.
The Obama administration did a lot of ostensibly good things in it's waning days. But these are strange to look at since they bring up the question, "how much did they expect this stand? When they saw an administration with a wholly different outlook ready to take over, what were they thinking?"
It's mysterious, frustrating or just "what you'd expect" (in a bad way) to me.
It's good politics, if nothing else. More good-sounding* policies for the opposition to have to spend political capital removing. Legislative cannon-fodder, in other words.
*The actual virtue of the policies being mostly irrelevant.
They’re either ineffectual, in which case leave them, good, so leave them, or bad, so remove them.
Given that it was quite possible that the democrats would have won in 2016, would Clinton have been pushing to remove them? If they are really bad (rather than good or irelevent) then they’d need to be removed.
>Hours after OSHA announced the beryllium rule delay on March 21, 2017, Byrne sent another letter to the agency...The letter thanked OSHA for the delay but urged it to issue a new beryllium rule that did not include the ancillary safety provisions for the shipyard and construction industries.
>That same day, Byrne’s re-election campaign received $5,000 in contributions from the Associated Builders & Contractors
Hate to think a politician could be bought for a paltry amount like $5,000. I mean, should not be able to be bought at all, but $5,000... That's nothing.
16 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 30.0 ms ] threadTrump sure likes to fiddle a lot.
It's mysterious, frustrating or just "what you'd expect" (in a bad way) to me.
*The actual virtue of the policies being mostly irrelevant.
They’re either ineffectual, in which case leave them, good, so leave them, or bad, so remove them.
Given that it was quite possible that the democrats would have won in 2016, would Clinton have been pushing to remove them? If they are really bad (rather than good or irelevent) then they’d need to be removed.
>That same day, Byrne’s re-election campaign received $5,000 in contributions from the Associated Builders & Contractors
Coincidence?
Searching now, I can't find the quote. I did find "It never fails to astonish me how cheaply a politician can be bought." by Timothy Noah at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/08/bob-ney-characte... .