Rand Paul, looking out for the little guy.

Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
If that little guy is a coal company.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/rand-paul-black-lung-big-coal_n_845840.html
WASHINGTON -- With American miners still succumbing to black lung disease, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has proposed a plan to reduce the number of such deaths through the stricter regulation of mining sites. But at a congressional committee meeting last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voiced concern that the new regulations may not be worth the cost to coal companies -- even though pockets of his state have been designated black lung “hot spots” by the federal government.

In a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, Paul also asserted that the number of black lung cases has been on the decline. But according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), in recent years such incidences have in fact been on the rise in certain areas of coal country.

"Every regulation doesn't save lives," Paul said in the hearing, later adding that the regulations so far have done a “pretty good job” of reducing black lung. "There is a point or a balancing act between when a regulation becomes burdensome enough that our energy production is stifled. We have to assess the costs of regulation and whether they save lives."

Paul’s comments didn’t escape the notice of mining safety advocates.

“I thought it was outrageous,” said Stephen Sanders, director of the Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, a Kentucky-based non-profit that supports black lung prevention regulations and other mine safety causes. “What he’s suggesting is to keep the cost of coal down we would jeopardize the health of coal miners.”

“He has no knowledge of coal mining, no knowledge of mine safety or health issues,” Tony Oppegard, a Kentucky attorney who’s represented miners, said of Paul.

Miners develop black lung disease, or coal worker’s pneumoconiosis, by breathing in tiny coal dust particles over the course of years, and often decades, of mining. MSHA’s proposals would cut in half a worker’s allowable exposure to these particles, from two milligrams per cubic meter of air to one –- a stipulation that could change the way some operators ventilate mineshafts and treat the air miners breath.

The regulations could also require certain mine workers to wear sophisticated monitors that keep track of dust exposure. Such equipment could let miners know when they are in danger, but its cost could partly fall to coal companies.

NIOSH first recommended the reduction in allowable exposure way back in 1995, though it wasn’t adopted at the time and then shelved. If implemented now, there would be a two-year phase-in period.

Paul said he was “concerned with” these proposed rules, given that MSHA and the coal companies have different estimates on how much it would cost to implement them. The National Mining Association told Louisville's Courier-Journal that the new regulations would cost the industry $1.8 billion in lost revenues.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), whose miner father suffered from black lung, described the proposals as needed reform. “The mining industry has geared up to attack MSHA’s new proposals to end black lung and I really think it is a shame,” Harkin said. “I can personally relate to the families of the 10,000 coal miners who have died from this horrible disease in the last decade alone."

"Our efforts to stop black lung are a classic example of how reasonable regulations can save lives,” Harkin added.

Incidences of black lung disease have generally been on the decline since a 1969 law set the maximum exposure at two milligrams. But in certain areas, particularly in western Virginia and eastern Kentucky, the number of cases has been rising since the late 1990s, according to figures from NIOSH. Phil Smith, spokesman for the United Mine Workers of America, said the workers affected tend to be non-union and working in smaller mines. Hoping for stepped up enforcement and better compliance from mining companies, his union supports the MSHA proposals.

“As far as we’re concerned, any time you save a life, that’s money well spent,” Smith said. “We know what causes [black lung], and we know what prevents it. … It’s difficult to put a pricetag on keeping healthy and staying alive.”

A libertarian and darling of the Tea Party movement, Paul is an outspoken proponent of smaller government and limited regulation, and his comments last week weren’t the first controversial remarks he’s made when it comes to mining safety. According to an August 2010 article in Details magazine, while at a campaign event in Harlan County last year, Paul answered a question about the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, in which 29 West Virginia miners perished, with a question of his own: "Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?"

"The bottom line," Paul then went on to say, "is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules."

Hopefully he gets his wish next election. I don't really know what else to say to this. I won't deny there is a such a thing as over-regulation, but does taking steps to reduce increasing rates of black lung for coal miners really fall into that category? It's shameful, almost sociopathic, the attitude certain people have when balancing people's lives with profit.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
He should've said what his father would've said instead of what's in bold. That is, the market regulates itself.

I'm sure the state of Kentucky would've done something about it if it were an issue anyway.

And yes, Rand Paul is always looking out for the little guy, unlike almost all of his colleagues.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I should also note, the number being reduced by half may not mean anything. It's what's in the half or the whole that matters.

It's Just like how when the Clinton EPA reduced the ppb in water our water still isn't safe. They even lie about it and say the water is safe, while they put flouride in our water which is not safe.
 

MacFatty

Member
Aug 31, 2010
72
0
0
I don't work in mining safety, but construction safety. It's a constant battle between safety and productivity. Over-regulation usually doesn't come from the government, I might add, but from over-zealous companies. Back on topic, coal still provides 50% of our electricity. It sounds like Paul isn't looking out for the little guy, but who do you think picks up that ~$1.8 billion in costs? Certainly not the employer (coal company), but the workers and those of us who pay an electric bill each month. We are entering a new era in safety. These safety regulations are still relatively new, ~30 years in the making, and you still have a majority of the workforce, especially employers, who are "old school". "I've done this, this way, for 30 years. Who are you to tell me how to do it differntly" is a quote I hear daily. Unfortunately, it comes less from employees and more from employers. So as these "old school" employees and employers are being replaced, the regulations are coming around to being common place. The culture is changing from hazard to safety being a part of the job. I don't agree that there is an acceptable loss of employee health, but I do accept that hazard is still and always will be, a part of the job. These regulations need to be put into effect, but they need to be compromise between regulaters and industry. OSHA has started to regulate this way, and I'm sure MSHA is working towards this as well. I believe Paul understands this says he is uncertain of the regulations, because I'm sure they were proposed, with no part contributed by industry. Industry does need to be consulted, because those making these regulations aren't involved in the day to day operations. They propose rules without knowing the actual consequences. They used proper ventilation as an example. This has to be done without weakening the mines structurally, also ventillation has to be placed so as to not majorly effect productivity of mining activities. It's not so simple as it sounds. You don't just drill more holes in the ground to provide more fresh air. They also talked about the smaller and/or non-union mines. While I'm not huge on unions (they have gotten way too political and a bit out of hand) they are the best way to implement safety regulations, starting with the training of new workers and the continuing education of workers. So while he didn't spell it out, he does have a valid point. Don't just jump to conclusions based on a few words.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
I don't work in mining safety, but construction safety. It's a constant battle between safety and productivity. Over-regulation usually doesn't come from the government, I might add, but from over-zealous companies. Back on topic, coal still provides 50% of our electricity. It sounds like Paul isn't looking out for the little guy, but who do you think picks up that ~$1.8 billion in costs? Certainly not the employer (coal company), but the workers and those of us who pay an electric bill each month. We are entering a new era in safety. These safety regulations are still relatively new, ~30 years in the making, and you still have a majority of the workforce, especially employers, who are "old school". "I've done this, this way, for 30 years. Who are you to tell me how to do it differntly" is a quote I hear daily. Unfortunately, it comes less from employees and more from employers. So as these "old school" employees and employers are being replaced, the regulations are coming around to being common place. The culture is changing from hazard to safety being a part of the job. I don't agree that there is an acceptable loss of employee health, but I do accept that hazard is still and always will be, a part of the job. These regulations need to be put into effect, but they need to be compromise between regulaters and industry. OSHA has started to regulate this way, and I'm sure MSHA is working towards this as well. I believe Paul understands this says he is uncertain of the regulations, because I'm sure they were proposed, with no part contributed by industry. Industry does need to be consulted, because those making these regulations aren't involved in the day to day operations. They propose rules without knowing the actual consequences. They used proper ventilation as an example. This has to be done without weakening the mines structurally, also ventillation has to be placed so as to not majorly effect productivity of mining activities. It's not so simple as it sounds. You don't just drill more holes in the ground to provide more fresh air. They also talked about the smaller and/or non-union mines. While I'm not huge on unions (they have gotten way too political and a bit out of hand) they are the best way to implement safety regulations, starting with the training of new workers and the continuing education of workers. So while he didn't spell it out, he does have a valid point. Don't just jump to conclusions based on a few words.

Well said. I rather regulation come from employees, unions, companies, or third party certification agencies etc

Washington can sometimes do good things but in the whole I think they can easily get a lot of things wrong and end up hurting a lot of people, including employees. Like Rand says, hes not an expert, the people in Washington are not experts on everything and I think they need to be very careful on what regulations they pass.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
This is why we have hearings and meetings for government officials to hear from the parties involved; experts, business owners, employees, safety committees, etc. and then make a decision from that. Paul is basically saying government shouldn't have the authority to make that decision at all. I say if not government, then who? You can't just leave it to one of those groups, you have to organize and hear all parties, weigh the collective concerns, deem appropriate action, and organize the execution, and you can't do that without some sort of governing body. I wish we could leave things out of government hands and everything just magically work out on their own, but the world just doesn't work that way.

Edit: Rereading that I realize I unintentionally described our court system, which is exactly the mechanism this country relies on to settle disputes, without requiring court judges to be experts on the subject of the case. So why is there some ideological position that such a mechanism should be used for everything BUT safety/environmental issues?
 
Last edited:

MacFatty

Member
Aug 31, 2010
72
0
0
"Every regulation doesn't save lives," Paul said in the hearing, later adding that the regulations so far have done a “pretty good job” of reducing black lung. "There is a point or a balancing act between when a regulation becomes burdensome enough that our energy production is stifled. We have to assess the costs of regulation and whether they save lives."
"The bottom line," Paul then went on to say, "is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules."

Look at those quotes alone, without the peanut gallery's comments, and then tell me again how he is saying to completely disregard government? Let's not forget that government is his job. He's not saying to do away with it completely, but to shrink it down. By doing what I said, which you reiterated, coming to a compromise between government and industry.

"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?"
This is an unfortunate fact. Just like nice guys finishing last.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Do you know how much it would cost the coal companies to implement? What would it do to the price of coal?

Would it be worth it to implement if it meant coal prices going up 50%?

Why not just stop mining coal? Reduce black lung to zero. If it saves one life, it's worth the price, right?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Look at those quotes alone, without the peanut gallery's comments, and then tell me again how he is saying to completely disregard government? Let's not forget that government is his job. He's not saying to do away with it completely, but to shrink it down. By doing what I said, which you reiterated, coming to a compromise between government and industry.


This is an unfortunate fact. Just like nice guys finishing last.

Peanut gallery quotes like the one contradicting Paul's assertion that black lung rates are declining so current regulation must be fine? The fact is he's using his ideology and his lack of expertise to argue he shouldn't make a decision regarding this issue, while his position as a government official gives him the access, ability, and responsibility to do just that. He's outright saying there should be no compromise between government and industry because of his explicit position that government should not be involved at all.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Do you know how much it would cost the coal companies to implement? What would it do to the price of coal?

Would it be worth it to implement if it meant coal prices going up 50%?

Why not just stop mining coal? Reduce black lung to zero. If it saves one life, it's worth the price, right?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I would like to before making a decision. That is apparently the difference between me and Paul. Which is my entire issue.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,093
1,534
126
Do you know how much it would cost the coal companies to implement? What would it do to the price of coal?

Would it be worth it to implement if it meant coal prices going up 50%?

Why not just stop mining coal? Reduce black lung to zero. If it saves one life, it's worth the price, right?

Hell, not everyone can afford healthcare. How about if people go into a hospital and can't afford to pay for healthcare we just murder them? Instead of welfare we can have murderfare. Instead of medicaid, murdercaid! Well hell, from your perspective human life has zero value next to cheap energy, let's just kill off anyone who isn't upper middle class and up then less energy gets used driving demand and price down!!
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
I bet Paul is for limiting the rights of the workers to sue their employer too.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
His message is clear and consistent. Rand Paul for president. He's the real deal. A true American.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,093
1,534
126
I bet Paul is for limiting the rights of the workers to sue their employer too.

And probably for limiting the collective bargaining rights for safety precautions. Making it illegal for them to strike for better safety precautions. Against healthcare assistance when they get sick. Against healthcare reform (or rather for repealing the reform that happened) so that their health insurance can drop them because of "pre-existing conditions". He's a conservative, which is a pseudonym for monster.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
And probably for limiting the collective bargaining rights for safety precautions. Making it illegal for them to strike for better safety precautions. Against healthcare assistance when they get sick. Against healthcare reform (or rather for repealing the reform that happened) so that their health insurance can drop them because of "pre-existing conditions". He's a conservative, which is a pseudonym for monster.

Conservatives are for private unions right to strike for whatever reason they want, but the employer has a right to fire them and get others to do the job if they want to.
Private vs public unions are apples and oranges.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Don't want black lung....don't work at a coal company, period.

I grew up in "Coal Country" in Eastern Kentucky and there are no other ways around it.
 

MacFatty

Member
Aug 31, 2010
72
0
0
Hell, not everyone can afford healthcare. How about if people go into a hospital and can't afford to pay for healthcare we just murder them? Instead of welfare we can have murderfare. Instead of medicaid, murdercaid! Well hell, from your perspective human life has zero value next to cheap energy, let's just kill off anyone who isn't upper middle class and up then less energy gets used driving demand and price down!!
1: He's getting off topic
2: I think you missed the sarcasm.

Quote: Originally Posted by her209 I bet Paul is for limiting the rights of the workers to sue their employer too. And probably for limiting the collective bargaining rights for safety precautions. Making it illegal for them to strike for better safety precautions. Against healthcare assistance when they get sick. Against healthcare reform (or rather for repealing the reform that happened) so that their health insurance can drop them because of "pre-existing conditions". He's a conservative, which is a pseudonym for monster.
Again, the healthcare thing is getting off topic. As far as being able to strike/refuse to work based on safety, well that's a federal law, which has been in effect for 30 or so years, and good luck to any one or more person/people to change that. Bringing it up is pointless. I try not to exaggerate and come up with resonable arguements. You're not.

Don't want black lung....don't work at a coal company, period. I grew up in "Coal Country" in Eastern Kentucky and there are no other ways around it.
Well said.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't work in mining safety, but construction safety. It's a constant battle between safety and productivity. Over-regulation usually doesn't come from the government, I might add, but from over-zealous companies. Back on topic, coal still provides 50% of our electricity. It sounds like Paul isn't looking out for the little guy, but who do you think picks up that ~$1.8 billion in costs? Certainly not the employer (coal company), but the workers and those of us who pay an electric bill each month. We are entering a new era in safety. These safety regulations are still relatively new, ~30 years in the making, and you still have a majority of the workforce, especially employers, who are "old school". "I've done this, this way, for 30 years. Who are you to tell me how to do it differntly" is a quote I hear daily. Unfortunately, it comes less from employees and more from employers. So as these "old school" employees and employers are being replaced, the regulations are coming around to being common place. The culture is changing from hazard to safety being a part of the job. I don't agree that there is an acceptable loss of employee health, but I do accept that hazard is still and always will be, a part of the job. These regulations need to be put into effect, but they need to be compromise between regulaters and industry. OSHA has started to regulate this way, and I'm sure MSHA is working towards this as well. I believe Paul understands this says he is uncertain of the regulations, because I'm sure they were proposed, with no part contributed by industry. Industry does need to be consulted, because those making these regulations aren't involved in the day to day operations. They propose rules without knowing the actual consequences. They used proper ventilation as an example. This has to be done without weakening the mines structurally, also ventillation has to be placed so as to not majorly effect productivity of mining activities. It's not so simple as it sounds. You don't just drill more holes in the ground to provide more fresh air. They also talked about the smaller and/or non-union mines. While I'm not huge on unions (they have gotten way too political and a bit out of hand) they are the best way to implement safety regulations, starting with the training of new workers and the continuing education of workers. So while he didn't spell it out, he does have a valid point. Don't just jump to conclusions based on a few words.
Agreed, well said. I tend to support these regulations myself. Assuming there is science to support the lower exposure and the technology exists to implement it, I'm willing to raise the price of coal a couple billion - which is admittedly a damned big increase in a $40 billion industry - for additional safety as long as the science shows need and good value for the dollar, and as long as limits are in place to prevent suddenly cheaper foreign coal from edging out the suddenly more expensive domestic coal. But certainly you and Rand make good points about government's "one size fits all, some of us are smarter than all of us" philosophy.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Do you know how much it would cost the coal companies to implement? What would it do to the price of coal?

Would it be worth it to implement if it meant coal prices going up 50%?

Why not just stop mining coal? Reduce black lung to zero. If it saves one life, it's worth the price, right?

Bingo.

I would also add, and however cruel it may sound, no one forces anyone to be a miner. I think employees need to bare some of the risk of a job. If you're concerned then don't do it. The company's would have to adjust if they couldn't find any employees. Problem is we say "yes, I'll do it" then blame the employer when things aren't perfect.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
What I would like to see is some scientific studies on the subject. How exactly are we effected? Is it long term small exposure, high concentrations, how much is safe? I am sure their have been studies, I don't really feel like looking them up though. But if these are scientific numbers on what is safe for the workers I could support it. Or have the companies explicitly tell there employee's who are at risk just what they are getting into.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Just make sure those scientific studies are not under Republican administrations. Otherwise they'll be written by the industry.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
"The bottom line," Paul then went on to say, "is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules."

I'll remember this next time Paul votes on a bill in an area in which he is not an expert, like, everything.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |