Instead of bashing brains out over "Fairness Doctrine" in the efforts of establishing limits or scope to Federal regulation, why not just ask the question? What EXACTLY should the Federal Government regulate?
Speculative trading of essential commodities? Did we all agree that it was counter-productive to the ENTIRE American economy to suffer the peaks and valleys of deregulated speculative trading on crude? (Kind of a microcosm of economic regulation period, isn't it? By NOT regulating the factors leading to "toxic debt" the world economy almost falls apart... Almost a carbon copy of 1929.) Speaking of which, remember THAT discussion? Over the Counter Derivatives? Does THAT qualify as something the Feds should be regulating?
The "Fairness Doctrine" does NOTHING to benefit the economy or Joe Schmoe's daily quality of life. It does, however, set a standard to what the Feds should and/or shouldn't be doing. And what they shouldn't be doing is messing with something that works. If the system were broke, (i.e. people NOT getting something they WANT) how could they pay Rush 174 million American dollars for a contract? Were there a liberal host of comperable popularity wouldn't they be banking fat stacks of cash?
I'll wait for my answers...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment