With the amazing government takeover of the automobile and financial industries, it is obvious that businesses in the dwindling private sector are nervous. Unfortunately, instead of fighting for their independence, many businesses are taking an "if you cannot beat them, join them" approach. Today has two examples of this mentality.
First, just before the July 4th recess, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill by a scant majority (218-212). In today's Denver Post, Mark Hillman scathingly denounces the agricultural lobbyists for capitulating on the cap-and-tax bill and granting cover to reluctant house members.
However, the economic illiteracy of the agriculture lobby is embarrassing. Waxman-Markey's threat to farmers and ranchers isn't limited to the carbon emissions of trucks, tractors and flatulent livestock.
In March, a dozen ag lobbying organizations — including the National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Council, National Corn Growers Association, and National Farmers Union — agreed on nine "Principles for Greenhouse Gas Legislation."
Not one of those principles addressed fuel or energy costs. Yet Waxman-Markey will increase electricity rates by an estimated 90 percent and gas prices by 58 percent, according to the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. That's in addition to $1,241 per year that cap-and-tax will add to the average household's energy bill and another $1,738 per household in lost spending power as energy costs inflate prices of essential goods and services.
Of course, the amended bill (that no one read prior to voting) provided all sorts of goodies to reluctant Congressmen. This article lists some of the horse-trading done to pass this bill, including increasing the amount of "offsets" farmers could potentially sell to polluted industry. Then again, agricultural lobbyists have a history of taxpayer-funded boondoggles (see ethanol).
The second example is Wal-Mart signing onto employer mandates for health care. While it would be better for people to shift to personal insurance plans so coverage is not tied to employment, Wal-Mart chose the top-down, government mandate solution.
What should one do about affected industries getting in bed with their government masters? Ari Armstrong of FreeColorado.com has an answer: the boycott.
Read the rest to see Wal-Mart's clueless public relations response to Ari's complaint. Although I sympathize with Ari's position, there is little likelihood that such an act will affect the company's bottom line.
Instead of fighting bad regulatory ideas, businesses decide to get a seat at the table with the regulators. The underlying assumption is that if one inputs into the legislative process, one will be able to lessen the impact on one's business and perhaps generate artificial advantages for the company.
These companies and lobbyists provide useful cover to the legislators and rulemakers during debate on controversial bills. However, these companies should be aware that if they outlive their usefulness to the government, they will be the first to be thrown under the bus.
by Civil Sense
