WHEN China threw out the last of Mao Tse-tungâs minions in the late 1970s and ushered in a new set of leaders, the Chinese coined a new phrase. Whatever privation was noted â no spare parts for trains, unsafe conditions in coal mines, empty shelves in shops â they would simply say: âYes, the Gang of Four ⊠but theyâre gone now.â
Here in Washington, we have acquired a gang of our own to blame: the entire federal government. Every day, its faceless bureaucracies are blamed for the decline of the American way.
Among the governmentâs ugliest creations, according to the new Republicans in town, is an edifice of regulations aimed at protecting people from toxic substances in the environment. For years, conservatives have argued that the cost of rules governing things like benzene in the air or pesticide residues on food outweighs the benefits. Itâs time, they say, to start calculating real risk and tallying the real cost of saving a life ⊠and jettison those regulations that cost the taxpayer more than he or she, literally, is worth.
Advertisement
But risk analysis is an arcane mix of science and statistics. Reports from Capitol Hill suggest that many members and their staff, who spend more time reading public opinion polls than calculating chi-square values, are neither interested in nor capable of understanding the mathematical nuances at work. At one Congressional hearing on legislation to throw out burdensome safety regulations, a congressman held up a toothpick. âToothpicks kill one American a year,â he declared. âIf the government had its way, I couldnât bring this toothpick into this room ⊠weâd have to clear the place out first.â
The few Congressional staff who have studied things like cancer risk predict that they will be steamrollered by opponents like these. âNobody understands anything about âendpoints in carcinogenesisâ or ânonlinear modelsâ for disease,â said one frustrated staffer.
Traditionally, the White House has used its clout to block scientifically naive Congressional proposals long enough for a compromise. No more, says our staff informant. âTheyâre dazed at the White House. Nobody knows what side to take any more.â
LETâS say you are the new chairman of the House Committee on Science, with authority to set priorities for the direction of the countryâs science policy. What do you do first? Should you focus your attention on basic research? Or perhaps itâs time to sort out the countryâs muddled space programme? Or possibly set a clear direction for the National Science Foundation?
Well, if youâre Robert S. Walker, your first priority is gas: specifically hydrogen. One of the first pieces of legislation to emerge from Walkerâs committee will be the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995. The act will direct the Department of Energy to place greater emphasis on hydrogen research and development. And so that it wonât cost the taxpayers anything, the act tells the Energy Department to freeze other research spending. (How new spending on top of a âfreezeâ can be done without increased spending is a trick best performed by politicians).
Why hydrogen? Well, âHydrogen is a perfect transition fuel for the future,â gushes a press release from Walkerâs office. It can be used in planes, buses, cars and home heating. âThe need for clean, safe sources of power in remote areas, especially in developing nations, makes hydrogen the perfect fuel choice.â It has been pointed out that one of the leading producers of hydrogen for fuel is a company located in Walkerâs home state of Pennsylvania. It has even been suggested that Walker is trying to curry favour with a potentially powerful ally.
ONE of the most entertaining things about Newt Gingrich, the new speaker of the House of Representatives, is his tendency to engage in flights of fancy regarding technology. A few weeks ago, for instance, he decided perhaps the best way to solve the problems afflicting schools in poverty-stricken cities would be to pass out free laptop computers. Amid derisive laughter, Gingrich withdrew the suggestion.
Somewhat more intriguing was Gingrichâs enthusiasm for a computer link that makes congressional documents â transcripts of hearings, new laws, and the like â available for free over the Internet. With typical hyperbole, Gingrich announced that the new system would finally allow people âacross the planetâ to learn about democracy. It would âchange the balance of power in Americaâ in favour of ordinary citizens, rather than Washington lobbyists.
What Gingrich apparently didnât realise, but certainly will once he hears from some of his corporate funders, is that such views put him in league with crusading lawyer Ralph Nader, a man whoâs made a living saying very nasty things about the free enterprise system. Nader has been campaigning for free computer access to government documents, too. But Nader wants more than a few Congressional hearings: he wants really valuable information, like corporate records on file at the Securities and Exchange Commission, census data, and all the opinions issued by federal courts.
These are public documents, but the government doesnât make them easy to obtain. As a result, a huge industry now exists to take this government data, repackage it, and sell it at a tidy profit. Nader thinks this system is undemocratic, and in an era of information superhighways, itâs obsolete as well. He wants the government to make it all accessible via the Internet. The companies are lobbying hard to prevent such a move. And once they have a word with Gingrich, heâs likely to change his tune.