Sputtering Toward the Rubber Room
In the right's latest attempt to blame liberals for the failures of conservatism, today's Wall Street Journal editorializes that Congressional Democrats are responsible for the widespread cancellation of American Airlines flights for re-inspections for wiring problems. Years of lax, airline-friendly FAA oversight of the sort that the Journal and the conservative movement has long advocated apparently has nothing to do with the mess. The paper's case is so desperate that it includes a self-evidently irrelevant graph showing that a lot more people die in auto than plane crashes. But the paper's broader argument is the most revealing:
There's a lesson here, and it reverberates beyond the FAA and the airline industry. Mr. Oberstar and other Democrats in Congress would just as soon do to the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product and Safety Commission and other "consumer protection" agencies exactly what they've managed to do to the FAA inside of a month's time. We thought we'd left this hypernanny state mentality in the 1970s, but with this Democratic Congress it is back with a vengeance. The FAA fiasco gives us a glimpse of what the world would look like under this re-regulatory assault. It would mean that every business misstep, no matter how rare, could potentially result in industry-wide repercussions. Congress would call for more rules and greater enforcement, in the name of "safety." And regulatory agencies would respond with overkill. The cost of doing business would rise, and consumers would pay for it in higher prices, less convenience or both.
But the absence of consumer protection (no quote marks necessary) over the past seven-plus years has led directly to demonstrable harms and increased risks to the public.
The Chicago Tribune just won a Pultizer Prize for its series showing how children have been harmed due to lax oversight of consumer products. Studies have documented an alarming deterioration in the Food and Drug Administration's capacity to do its job, with consequences like the Melamine-tainted pet food and E. coli outbreak from spinach. The need to shutdown flights to correct potentially dangerous wiring problems wouldn't have happened if the FAA had been doing its job all along.
The spectacle of watching enraged conservatives flailing their fingers in every direction without pausing to look in the mirror only reinforces that the movement's day of reckoning is rapidly approaching. They, not appeasers on the left, are responsible for the debacle in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib. The hostility of Alan Greenspan toward regulation, rather than the anti-redlining legislation that people like Larry Kudlow keep spewing about, played a huge role in the subprime fiasco. And the tax cuts for the rich that were widely applauded by the Journal and the right greatly exacerbated soaring inequality while delivering none of the promised economic benefits for the rest of the country.
They can make all the noise they want, but it's time to lock them away -- preferably somewhere padded and soundproof.












But...but...
It's the self-justifying genius of extreme ideologies. Any mistakes, any shortcomings, can be blamed on failing to fully and completely adopt the most extreme position. Thus, if partial deregulation has resulted in horrendous failures, the problem is that the deregulation has only been partial.
And there's a corrolary. It's not that in a deregulated world, we wouldn't experience disasters. It's that the WSJ would have us judge morality in hard-dollar terms. So if flaws are rare but fatal, they're probably not worth the cost of fixing. And if they're common enough to justify fixing, the market will probably implement the fix on its own.
The only problem is bleeding-hearts, like you and me, who think that even healthy profit margins for a toy manufacturer can't really justify lead paint on children's trains. But hey, what do you expect from a bunch of liberals?
April 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And if they're common enough to justify fixing, the market will probably implement the fix on its own."
The tainted products from China is an example of how the market hasn't implemented a fix on its own. Many companies have moved to China as the lowest cost provider (with quality oversight), subsequently manufacturing facilities in other locations closed. Right now - who can fill the gap and produce untainted cheap kids toys, blood thinning medications, pet foods, seafood? Sorry, you're SOL.
April 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the articles about American's current woes mention that the airlines have been squeezed by high fuel prices (something our government can only control to some extent), but they tend to treat that as a separate issue from the maintenance and safety inspection problems... and I think that it is not separate. Lax regulation and oversight did play its part, but carriers would not have been cutting corners as much as they have, had they been in better financial shape.
The WSJ article referenced pointed out that fatal accidents have not increased recently, but fails to mention how often flights are delayed and connections missed these days because of mechanical problems. Not to mention the cuts in the number of flights because fewer and fewer routes are profitable. With aviation fuel prices as high as they are something has to give, and those somethings have been maintenance, safety checks and the lower-traffic regional markets.
April 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm.
A quarter of a million passengers inconvenienced (how's that for a mealy-mouthed euphemism?) and millions (billions?) of dollars in lost productivity because two clips were set an inch apart and not an inch and a quarter?
And no one has claimed that correcting the defect in the normal course would have materially increased risk.
April 11, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed - there seems to be a large dose of over-reaction on the FAA's part.
April 11, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There's no better regulator than a competitive marketplace" is certainly a truism... if the marketplace is perfectly competitive and the consumers are all perfectly informed.
Two very large "ifs" that are never true in the real world. There's a reason companies cut corners at the expense of consumers: they can get away with it. And if you don't cut corners, but your competitors are and are getting away with it, then you'll be left behind.
April 11, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
As Chuck Prince, Citigroup's CEO, said of the securitization hullaballoo, "As long as the music is playing, you have got to get up and dance."
April 11, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, have subscribed to the Financial Times -- it is far more informative.
April 11, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that will take an informed electorate, and I can't hold my breath for that long. Especially as a comfortably deregulated news industry does whatever is necessary to remain that way.
April 12, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing this out, Greg. I don't know if you've noticed, but gee willikers, all of a sudden there's a lot more so-called "moderate republicans" around in the reader posts.
They "reasonably" call Bill Clinton a neocon, and "reasonably" trash Hillary Clinton to get in favor with Obama supporters, and "reasonably" argue that, really, McCain isn't so bad compared to those evil democrats the Clintons. Good grief!
It's incredible. It's like 2000 all over again. I just hope more folks pick up on this absurd blather, and send these concern trolls packing to the afore mentioned rubber rooms.
Perhaps with therapy, they can rejoin their fellow citizens here in reality.
April 12, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you really want to see how "customer friendly" the FAA has been toward its "customers" (the airlines, not the passengers), take a look at the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) based on their investigations of crashes and near-crashes, and the paltry number of AD's (air worthiness directives) the FAA has issued in support of those recommendations. It is a litany of footdragging and cost-benefit studies.
When ADs are issued, they ARE directives -- not just nice-to-know information.
There is no need to do any hand-wringing on behalf of the airlines that may have cut corners or dragged their feet in complying with the AD's.
April 12, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink