Yes, if business supports something it's automatically bad. That's totally mature and sensible.
As opposed to if business supports something it's automatically good? I suspect one thing this bill will do is preempt any relevant State legislation. Since the pipes in the pipelines themselves aren't going to cross interstate borders once they've been installed, I fail to see where pipeline safety needs to be a federal issue in the first place.
Oh come on now, no one would seriously expect me for taking the industry's word on anything. I just don't understand this silly idea that, because it has support from within the industry, that automatically means it's a sweetheart deal riddled with loopholes that will make everything worse,
just because. Nothing reported about this bill seems suspect or nefarious. There have been numerous pipeline explosions in the last year+ and deaths and injuries from nearly every single one. It's supported unanimously by Democrats and all Republicans sans Rand Paul. It's supported by the industry itself, and safety advocates within the industry.
All of that seems like common sense. Paul isn't objecting because of any reason in particular, which is what makes this whole ordeal so stupid.
He's opposed to something in the abstract even if it makes perfect sense and has near-unanimous consensus on policy in the specific. He's opposed to it purely out of principle regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. There is nothing excusable about that, it is simply shortsighted and stupid. Debates on policy should be focused on their benefits and their effectiveness. Certainly, there are exceptions for particularly overreaching legislation, but I sincerely doubt gas pipeline safety regulation will forever infringe our core freedoms and end liberty as we know it.
