 |
Phone (419) 448-3200 Fax (419) 447-3274 General E-Mail: adtrib@bright.net Newsroom E-Mail: atnews@bright.net |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Government should follow its own laws What's good for Americans as individuals and businesses ought to be good for their government, too. That isn't how the law works in many cases, however. Regulatory proliferation during the past few decades has created a set of expensive headaches for individuals and, more often, businesses. The cost comes straight out of the pocketbooks of Americans and their families. Businesses, forced to comply with a dizzying variety of local, state and federal rules, must pad prices to cover the cost of compliance. Consumers pay, by the billions of dollars every year. It is true that some government regulation is necessary and desirable to protect the public. If it is such a good idea, however, why does government itself balk at complying with its own rules? Congress for many years was notorious for writing laws from which it exempted itself. Now Kansas City, Mo., municipal government wants the Supreme Court to shield it from some liability under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. The Kansas City case specifically involves a paraplegic man who was injured while being taken to jail and won a $2 million settlement against the city. In ruling on the case, high court justices could write a broad exemption from the ADA for local, state and federal governments. Or, justices could rule that Kansas City must comply with the ADA just like any private individual or company. Governments traditionally have enjoyed some immunity from liability and regulation, simply because the cost of compliance doesn't come out of public officials' pockets. Taxpayers foot the bill. But such exemptions tend to make the cost of compliance invisible to public officials, including those who enact and enforce regulatory laws. Justices should not grant Kansas City's request that it be given a partial exemption from the ADA. In fact, courts should take a dim view of any government body seeking to be shielded from the ADA or other regulations. Perhaps if more public officials had to comply with their own rules, they would be less likely to foist new ones on the rest of us without having compelling reasons to do so. |
