In the May 14, 2004 issue of this Newspaper, Ben Gilmore continued a discussion that he and I have had over time. I was not inclined to respond until I was spurred by the recent airing of ENRON Corporation audio tapes to go back and re-read his column, since one of its subjects was energy policy. Our differences are not really about energy policies. They are about the legitimate role of government. I think that it is important to continue this discussion in a public forum because it involves very basic assumptions on that question.
In that column, Mr. Gilmore said “I agree in advance to accept a better set of laws. Until then, I choose to honor individuality and responsible self-government, modeled after the best example of quality character. I choose to respect private property and the fruit of individual labor. I reject 'globalism' (international governmental organizations) and hold individual nations and communities responsible for their corporate actions. I support local authority, originating in the individual and the family as the building block of a society. Finally - I hold that the fruit of such standards will be individual and corporate liberty that is anathema to 'social engineering.'”
One key to understanding our differences is in our view of the individual character. I am the more pessimistic. Mr. Gilmore talks of “self-government, modeled after the best example of quality character.” I ask you to consider whether it was “quality character” that encouraged the traders at ENRON to rig the energy markets to the detriment of the residents of California. Is seems more like an example of economic Darwinism at its extreme. ENRON served neither its customers nor its stockholders as ENRON executives built showplace palaces a la Saadam Hussein.
I gave an example of unfettered corporate greed. What was our government doing while this was happening? The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was established to oversee “the establishment, review, and enforcement of rates and charges for the transmission or sale of electric energy...” According to FERC's web site (http://www.ferc.gov) “The purpose of market oversight and investigations is to protect customers through understanding markets and their regulation, identifying and fixing market problems, and assuring compliance with Commission rules and regulations.”
FERC's non-action is not something that you can blame on either political party. When Governor Davis was initially challenging the causes of the California Power Crisis, our president was named Clinton and the appointees were Democratic. The problem of non-action in the public interest continues under the Republican Bush administration. This argues that the problem is more fundamental, that large corporations have the power to influence public policy for their own benefit. Even now, FERC is being challenged to provide remediation of the problems of West Coast electric rate payers and instead, they act to enforce illegitimate corporate contracts.
Some still hold to the precepts of Milton Friedman that the only responsibility of a corporation is to it's investors. Let me cite another case to show where this fails the public. Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and Carl Prine, an investigative reporter at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, were able to enter the via unlocked gates of a chemical plant in metropolitan Pittsburgh and walk unchallenged for thirty minutes. This plant had a large storage tank of deadly boron trifluoride that they were able to reach and which would as easily have been reachable by any terrorist.
The 9/11 Commission recently held its final public hearings. They have reviewed what government did and did not do to prevent the attacks of 9/11. The lack of security at our nations chemical plants is well documented. According to 60 Minutes, Environmental Protection Agency records show that 1000 tons of deadly chlorine gas is stored at a chemical plant sitting in the middle of high density population, directly under a major highway leading into New York City. Over 12 million people live within a 14 mile radius of that plant and could be severely affected in the case of accident or sabotage.
What is the role of government to protect its citizens? Legislation to give the federal government the authority to control security at our nations chemical plants has been stalled in Congress for two years. It has been fought by major corporate lobbyists and the trade organization American Chemistry Council. They argue for self regulation. Yet, in the interest of cost reduction, these same companies continue the lax security practices that endanger us all. Terrorists do not need to bring chemical weapons into the country. They are already here.
Until we find a way to disconnect governmental policy making from any influence other than the overall betterment of the American citizen, I do not believe that these problems will have any solution. The best solution does not always come at the lowest cost and we have to be willing to accept that. The Yugo demonstrated that the best product does not necessarily have the lowest price tag. In the case of the Yugo, it was so bad that it failed. In the case of government, failure is not an option.
New Gingrich's “Contract with America” was a fundamental re-thinking of the role of government. It is time that we have another re-thinking of our social contract. Mr. Gilmore talks about a “better set of laws.” That is what we truly need. He considers that there is too much “social engineering” at present. I suggest that social or economic Darwinism, the unbridled acceptance of private property rights and the extension of those rights to corporations is also not an acceptable practice.
Posted by at June 26, 2004 07:27 AM