Reasons to regulate

A recent editorial by the Democrat-Gazette mentioned the Trump administration has cut almost 70 regulations on businesses. It stated, “Those are wins, no matter what the loyal but sometimes hyperventilating opposition would allow.”

No specifics were given on what regulations were cut. It seems to be a basic Republican idea nowadays that business regulations are all bad. Businesses constructing new buildings have to spend large sums of money to ensure wiring meets fire codes; that adequate fire suppression systems are in place; that fire exits exist and are clearly marked. Businesses didn’t volunteer to do this—they are required by government regulations. Would the Democrat-Gazette consider it a “win” to eliminate the fire codes? It would save businesses money, after all.

Food processing plants have to spend money to provide hair coverings, gloves, lab coats, etc., to their workers to help ensure their products are germ- and disease-free. Again, companies did not volunteer to provide these—government regulations require it. We could save companies money if we eliminate those regulations.

But I think that saving companies money is not the only criteria we should be using to determine the value of government regulations. I would be willing to bet that those 70 regulations were put in place to save lives, reduce injury, or provide some other public benefit—even though they might cost businesses to implement them. To just make the blanket statement that eliminating 70 business regulations is an automatic “win” is shortsighted, and I’ll try to stop my hyperventilating now.

MICHAEL VINING

Benton