Friday, January 29, 2016

The Goldwater Institute's case for deregulation of just about everything

The Arizona State Idioture is back in session. The GOPlins have figured out how to earn their pay by doing little - and thinking not at all: they can let the lobbyists write the laws for them. "Carrying" a bill should be taken literally.

Here's a case in point - what I will call a GI Bill. It's not what you or members of your family might have used to pay for their college education. It's short for a Goldwater Institute bill.

Following are snippets from the Daily Star's report yesterday morning.

On a 5-3 margin Wednesday the House Commerce Committee voted to require every city, county and state agency to review every regulation and detail how each is necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare. The legislation would then mandate that the restrictions be modified or repealed if they do not serve those purposes.

Anyone who believes a rule or ordinance is excessive could then sue. And if the government did not prove the rule’s necessity — and the burden would be on the government, not the person challenging the rule — a judge would be required to void it.

Let's lean on this one. Say a restaurant has been reported in the Daily Star as being out of compliance with food safety rules. You know - the rules that require handling of foods in a manner so that the foods you eat will not make you sick. But, you see, that interferes with your bidness. So you sue the city. Ands the city picks up the tab for your lawsuit.

Patrice Kraus, lobbyist for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said the measure is flawed.

For example, she said, a city would have to prove a regulation is “necessary” to protect health, safety or welfare. Kraus said that would allow a business owner to argue that a retail sales tax permit is illegal because it is not necessary to meet any of those goals.

“This could lead to a lot of frivolous lawsuits,” she told lawmakers. Kraus noted that the law does not allow cities to recover their legal fees even if a judge sides with them.

[Goldwater Institute attorney] Riches defended that provision ensuring that those who sue face no financial risk, even if they lose. He said it would be wrong to let a city seek legal fees from “somebody who’s just trying to earn a living.”

Marvelous. That line of thinking is enough to give one a case of the GIs.

No comments:

Post a Comment