Rand Paul opposes pipeline safety

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Marokai, one quote you neglected to pull from that article was:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So in other words, new Federal regulations appear to be in the pipeline (pun intended) regardless of whether or not a bill passes.

[Paul is] 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.

As we know it? No, but as it should be, perhaps.  Yes, pipeline safety is important, but I still l don't see any reason to make a Federal issue out of it.  This topic is analogous to building codes and could be handled in the same manner as building codes are without centralizing power.  What Paul is pedantically opposing is the itch to define everything as a Federal issue first and require opponents of centralized bureaucracy to come up with arguments why it should be left to the States or even private companies, organizations, and/or individuals.  It really should be the other way round. Start with the presumption that government involvement is not needed, and then if it is determined that government involvement is needed, start off with the presumption that the States should handle it, not the Federal government until proven otherwise.

Ideally the threat of having to pay for the damages when pipeline incidents occur would be sufficient to prompt companies and individuals to do what good regulations would require them to do anyway, but we've had ample examples of the 'it won't happen here syndrome' to demonstrate why that doesn't always work.  So, the case for government regulation of pipelines can be taken as a given. The limited liability of corporations and corporate employees also plays a part.  If a pipeline executives and investors had to pay part of the cost of any damages out of their own pockets, they'd have a much stronger incentive to care, but they'd also have a much stronger incentive to find something else to do.

What hasn't been shown is any need for pipeline regulation to be done at the Federal level instead of the State level.  Indeed, the failure of existing Federal pipeline regulations to prevent serious problems from occurring in multiple locations suggests that State regulation that has the potential to be more responsive to observed problems could be superior to Federal regulation.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Joe Republic]

The fact that a Senator can single-handedly block anything is the real issue here.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Senate is so screwed up.

Seems to be a recurring problem with Kentucky's Class 3 senators, too.  Remember when Jim Bunning single-handedly stopped all unemployment benefits from being paid for weeks, because he was a vindictive old bastard?

[Paul Kemp]

The fact that a Senator can single-handedly block anything is the real issue here.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Senate is so screwed up.

Seems to be a recurring problem with Kentucky's Class 3 senators, too.  Remember when Jim Bunning single-handedly stopped all unemployment benefits from being paid for weeks, because he was a vindictive old bastard?

To be fair, Bunning probably just thought he was getting ready for a baseball game.

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://news.yahoo.com/senator-blocks-pipeline-safety-bill-principle-070809432.html

OMG NOT DA FEDURAL GOVMENT!11!!!!1

Rand Paul is trying to be like his father... and failing miserably.  Ron Paul is a seasoned Libertarian and Rand is just a hack libertarian.  He just spews out hackish talking points but when he is pressed on them he has no answer.  His father can debate and actually come up with some good points about some of his positions.