Mark Schauer, a former Democratic congressman from Michigan and now co-chair of the BlueGreen Alliance, is urging Gov. Rick Snyder to veto House Bill 4326, making it the governor’s first veto. As reported by MIRS news service, Schauer claims that HB 4326, which prohibits state agencies from promulgating regulations more stringent than federal requirements without legislative approval, is a potential threat to the Great Lakes.

HB 4326 has nothing to do with backsliding on environmental protection and everything to do with good government. “Regulation without representation,” where bureaucrats in cubicles churn out reams of regulations with little to no legislative oversight, is anathema to good government. Two pillars upon which a representative democracy rests are transparency and accountability; the current regulatory regime erodes both.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

It is impossible for democratic ideals to flourish unless the electorate knows what the government is doing and has the opportunity to influence the outcome by holding elected officials accountable. HB 4326 enhances transparency and accountability in government by vesting important regulatory decisions with elected officials who are accountable to voters.

Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, there is nothing in HB 4326 that prohibits the Legislature from approving regulations more stringent than federal requirements. Special interests working directly with government employees effectively bypassing elected officials undermines the democratic process and is a threat to liberty. HB 4326 makes it more difficult for that to happen.


Related Articles:

Cutting Federal Great Lakes Funding Would Not Be an Environmental and Economic Crisis

Progress Michigan Hits Road With False School 'Cuts' Claims

Wild West: What Education Establishment Calls Parents Choosing Their Kids’ School

Truth Optional When Teachers Union Defends Its Turf

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:

Facebook
Twitter

There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites