Questions of regulation

The BP oil spill crisis is steadily becoming the defining moment of Barack Obama’s presidency.

BP’s inability to get the situation under control and the federal government’s reluctance to “own” the crisis will surely result in long-term consequences for both the environment and Obama’s administration.

New York Times columnist David Brooks’ Tuesday column on the matter brought up several interesting points regarding Obama’s presidency. While it appears the first 16 months have been marked by decisive political action, the oil plume problem is highlighting the administration’s ineffectiveness in matters of urgency.

What troubles me the most is that the administration is reluctant to step in and take control in a matter that almost all Americans agree needs to be addressed. On the other hand, it has pursued issues such as health care and financial reform that deeply divide the nation.

The fact of the matter is that people are tired of all the change going on in Washington. Obama and Congress have already spent incredible sums of money trying to turn the economy around and revitalize health care, so now they must deal with much smaller reserves.

The Tea Party movement, for all of its far-fetched attributes, is the face of a growing dissent against the possibility of increasing taxes and spending to support partisan politics. People are afraid Obama will end up like Prince John of Robin Hood fame, taxing the country into a state of dejection.

Of course, the likelihood that Obama will raise taxes or spending by a perilous amount is extremely low. And while the measures already enacted by Congress at his behest have been controversial, there is no doubt they will bring much-needed regulation and reform to the industries in question.

The real issue at hand is how much regulation is necessary.

Corporations and the government have a very strange relationship. While they both serve as opposing forces in terms of regulation, they also have the power to help the other financially. This is especially true in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictions on corporations’ political speech, which translates into big bucks for campaign coffers.

However, when left unchecked, corporations have no incentive to protect the environment or the welfare of their employees. These measures are generally more costly, both monetarily and in terms of opportunity.

Without a market or government incentive to stop these harmful practices, firms will continue to pollute, suppress the rights of their workers and engage in hostile business tactics.

The government must provide the right balance of regulation to ensure the well-being of the populace along with the well-being of the economy.If the government provides too much regulation, it will effectively smother a corporation’s ability to freely capitalize on opportunities.

The electorate needs to wake up and decide right now what amount of regulation is necessary to avoid these disasters in the future.

As Brooks so eloquently stated, “We should be able to have a grounded conversation based on principles 95 percent of Americans support. Yet that isn’t happening. So the period of stagnations begins.”


E-mail: halderfe@indiana.edu