Dear Editor,
Cutting state regulations may make us poorer, sicker, and less prosperous
Did you know there’s a place in Christiansburg where on a clear day you can see the Peaks of Otter, which by my reckoning are about 50 air miles away? It didn’t used to be like this. In the era of my youth, the skies were too polluted. Citizens of many of our larger cities breathed unhealthy air. The rivers and lakes were polluted, too. Chemicals spread on our crops were killing the wildlife. Lots of workers were hurt on the job. Our highways were horrifically lethal.
There have been some notable setbacks over the decades, but today we live in a cleaner, healthier, safer and more affluent country.
I’ll sum up the reason in one word: regulations.
When Delegate Jason Ballard argues, “Cutting state regulations is good for business and personal growth,” he’s only partly right. While nobody likes or supports “redundancies, contradictions with state code,” or other obstacles to health, safety, or prosperity, there are reasons regulations were put into law in the first place, and we’d be sicker, poorer, and weaker as a nation if we obliterated them.
Ballard’s arguments vilify the essential work of legislators who write them and regulators who enforce them, protecting us from companies that in the name of profits would do us harm. Worldwide, nations with poor regulatory frameworks have unbreathable air, undrinkable water, poisoned landscapes, and dangerous worker and transportation networks.
Well-structured regulations protect consumers and citizens, promote fair competition, and ensure environmental health and sustainability. In business, regulations prohibit monopolies and ensure a level playing field, benefiting consumers through lower prices, better products and more innovation. Regulations ensure stable, predictable ecosystems where companies can better invest and plan. Regulations protect workers, too; OSHA regulations have prevented an estimated 712,000 worker deaths since its inception in 1970.
Consumer regulations prevent us from being scammed or defrauded and keep our products safe. Regulations limit pollution and encourage sustainable practices, leading to a healthier environment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that safety standards and regulations have prevented more than 860,000 deaths nationwide between 1968 and 2019.
Parenthetically, Del. Ballard’s argument that, “regulatory reforms in the state building code have cut the average construction cost for new homes by at least $24,000,” is all well and good, but it seems hypocritical and ironic when the two signature economic policies of the current president (in his same party) – expelling foreign workers and placing tariffs on almost everything we buy – are both highly inflationary. It’s difficult, with the political situation in flux (e.g. the on-again, off-again tariffs) to predict the exact increase, but the combined impact is expected to be significant and will add tens of thousands of dollars to the price of a new home, probably far more than any savings from fewer regulations.
Regulations have caught the ire of conservatives for decades, but we’d be sicker, poorer and weaker if we blindly eviscerated our regulatory structure.
Virginian James Madison said in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Instead, humans are inherently flawed and prone to ambition and too often criminal self-interest. A well-designed and appropriately implemented regulatory framework helps us live together in a safer, saner, more stable, more competitive, more sustainable and more equitable state and nation, and thus should be appreciated rather than berated.
I hope our kids and grandkids can enjoy the clean air and fresh water regulations have brought us.
Michael Abraham
Christiansburg
