Beating back the regulators

Consumers and U.S. businesses alike are set to take it on the chin -
again - if Congress, the courts, or the people don't rise up and smack down
the U.S. Department of Labor.

According to a report
on Monday, "The U.S. Labor Department unveiled wide-ranging proposals.
aimed at making the workplace safer for employees engaged in heavy lifting
or repetitive motion."

The plan, offered by that enormous beast of regulatory vagaries called
OSHA, is a thousand pages long and would require businesses "to fit employee
workspaces to suit each individual if an employee suffered an
ergonomic-related injury." Furthermore, the proposal's "second half covers
any employer who has a worker reporting an ergonomic injury. Once that
happens, the employer would have to improve the conditions in that portion
of the workplace. Companies could do such things as adjusting workstations,
changing the height of an assembly line or buying equipment such as
conveyors to mitigate strains from lifting."

In an attempt to be clever, Labor Secretary Alexis Herman supported this
absurdity by claiming that "good ergonomics is good economics," dismissing
the $4.2 billion annual costs to businesses as a figure to be "offset by the
$9 billion in annual savings from lower worker compensation payouts and
other costs."

TRENDING: End-time plague? River in Israel turns blood red

Where have we heard that one before?

The proposal is being accurately characterized by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and assorted businesses as "ludicrous" and "expensive" - charges I
would be inclined to agree with. Furthermore corporations claim that the
proposal, if passed, would result in more industry job losses and cost
"hundreds of billions" of dollars rather than the few billion advertised by
Herman and OSHA. Because of their poor track record of trying to appeal to
the sensibilities of government regulators, opponents have already pledged
to go to court to block the new rules which, they say, are based on
inconclusive Labor Department assertions.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Herman and OSHA have suspiciously issued
their proposal before the release of a congressionally sponsored report on
ergonomics. American taxpayers and businesses have seen this kind of
"preemptive strike" tactic before; chances are good that there is
contradictory information in a forthcoming report. How often have federal
agencies moved to issue rules before contradictory information is released
to the general public?

But worse is Herman's illusory view of corporate realities. As a leading
advocate of the kind of socialism endemic to the Clinton administration,
Herman's almost passe dismissal of the real costs to U.S. businesses
and the job market are astounding. Considering neither she nor most of the
bureaucrats at OSHA have ever had to run a corporation of their own, I tend
to dismiss their assessments of the costs and applicability of their
proposal as the rantings of Utopian fantasy.

Do we really need a multi-billion dollar rule for 600,000 workers? Where
does this kind of regulatory bombardment end? Somebody should tell Herman
and Co. that the panzies they have typing out this 1,000-page behemoth at
OSHA should find another job if their wrists can't take such "punishment."
Good grief.

With so many federal "agencies" repeatedly bombarding the bottom lines of
American companies for ridiculous and agenda-driven reasons, is it any
wonder why they're leaving this country in droves?

There are hearings set up for February 2000 to "discuss" this proposal.
I'm hoping lots of corporate lawyers, businessmen and Americans concerned
about their job show up to reject this absurdity. Barring that, I expect
Congress to step up to the plate and smack Alexis Herman and OSHA down but
good.

Gee - maybe some presidential candidates could make a campaign issue out
of reducing the unconstitutional influence of federal agencies. In the
meantime if Republicans seriously want to reduce the federal budget, they
could start by axing Herman's.

New smoking data causes debate

According to a report in the London Guardian Sunday, a British researcher
said he found that "smoking up to ten cigarettes a day" has a negligible
health effect. Furthermore, he said, the dangers of second-hand smoke have
been greatly exaggerated - mostly by political opportunists - and that the
real reason smokers die sooner is because they don't eat well.

"Dr. Ken Denson, of the Thame Thrombosis and Homeostasis Research
Foundation in Oxford, has spent the last decade studying smoking-related
illnesses and concluded that the real problem isn't the cigarettes, but the
poor diet of smokers," the report said.

Denson is said to be claiming that past smoking "studies" claiming huge
health risks "are flawed because they haven't taken diet into account.
Smokers have been shown to eat less fruit and vegetables and more saturated
fats than non-smokers, a combination linked to cancer and heart disease.
They tend to come from lower social classes already prone to bad diet."

"Smokers should be told to improve their diet to protect themselves but
the medical establishment has a mental block about smoking," Denson told the
Guardian. "Smokers with the right diet can have an 80 percent lower risk of
cancer than the smoker on a bad diet."

"He points to the fact that smokers and moderate wine drinkers have a 50
percent lower risk of suffering Parkinson's Disease, which affects 200,000
people in Britain," the Guardian said.

The usual anti-tobacco suspects are charging that Dr. Denson is off his
rocker and is only trying to "sensationalize" his research for personal
gain. Funny they should mention that, considering it is a tactic often
used by anti-tobacco groups and researchers.

China's Taiwan designs

Make no mistake about it - whether it happens during the final days of
the Clinton administration or whether the next U.S. administration will have
to deal with it - China is adamant about stomping Taiwan into resubmitting
itself to the now-denounced "one China" policy.

According to a recent report, Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui reaffirmed
his "two-China" position during a speech in September, further angering the
Chinese and in essence strengthening Beijing's resolve to oppose - by force,
if necessary - any permanent split between the two entities.

As if to underscore this point, a new Pentagon/Defense Intelligence
Agency report detailed by Bill Gertz in Tuesday's Washington Times said the
Chinese are continuing to increase the numbers of deployed medium-range,
nuclear-capable ballistic missiles facing Taiwan. At the same time they are
developing advanced missile, naval, air force and laser weapons systems in
an attempt to counter any move by the U.S. and her allies to "interfere"
with their "sovereign right to protect China's territorial integrity."

As the presidential elections heat up in the coming months, any candidate
wishing to succeed Clinton had better be giving this issue some serious
thought: "What will the U.S. response be when China has had enough and
finally attacks Taiwan?" Candidates may choose to keep their answers to
themselves because my guess is that any candidate who has taken a hard-line
approach against China and looks likely to win the White House will trigger
Beijing's Taiwan campaign sooner rather than later. The Chinese, who have
already bought the Clinton administration, may believe the current president
is too weak (and too compromised) to intervene.

That means the new administration will have to deal with a war in East
Asia from day one - if Clinton leaves, that is.