|
|
|
|
|
|
by sandworm101
3496 days ago
|
|
|
The prez isn't in charge of budgets. They have been cut over the years anyway. So I don't see any great changes there. He could put a crony in charge, someone would apply the science selectively, but there are legal bulwarks against this. They couldn't, for example, place restrictions on only foreign goods. That wouldn't fly constitutionally. And if they just stopped testing anything, then companies that product dangerous products would be hit with lawsuits. Frankly, most would rather have the governments looking at the safety of products that they would jurors. A mandatory recall is always better than a mass class action. |
|
|
There are some, but past Presidents have had great influence over regulatory outcomes.
> most [companies] would rather have the governments looking at the safety of products that they would jurors.
That would seem rational, but that's not how many companies think. For example, Wall Street, despite recent experience with catastrophic consequences, still actively resists regulation.
That's also a good example of the influence of Presidents. Bush deregulated Wall Street; for example, the SEC is supposed to be the consumer advocate but Bush put Wall Street insiders in charge of it (IIRC). Obama restored at least some regulation.