Gop Moves Quantity Over Quality

At this early date, the new Republican leadership has pushed an extraordinary volume of legislation through the House of Representatives or its committees. In that mass of bills, can a theme - a common purpose - be identified?

States’ rights might be one. Newt Gingrich and his colleagues have talked a good deal about the need to shift power and responsibility from the federal government to the states.

But that possibility is ruled out by the pending bill to limit lawsuits over personal injuries. Tort law, which governs such cases, has been a matter for the states throughout our history. The Republican bill, laying down rules for the whole country in major areas of tort law, would displace state legislatures and courts: the most breathtaking nationalization of the law in a very long time.

Market economics is another possibility. “Let the market decide instead of the government” is a favorite conservative saying.

But again, the slogan conflicts with what House Republicans have done. In voting to end the nutrition program for pregnant women, infants and children (WIC), folding it into a block grant to the states, they rejected a proposal to require competitive bids when a state buys infant formula. Such competition - reliance on the market - saved the federal government $1 billion last year in the WIC program.

Evidently one must look not at what the Republican leaders say but at what they do. These are some of the measures that have passed the House or are on their way to the floor:

Repeal of the National School Lunch Act, which has fed hundreds of millions of children free or at low cost over the last 50 years. It would be replaced by a block grant, with less funding, that would let the states provide meals if they wished. Thousands of schools are expected to drop out of the program if the change is made.

Ending the WIC program. Just as the school lunch act has raised nutritional standards for children, WIC has reduced infant mortality and the number of low birth-weight babies, who are more likely to have developmental problems.

Legislation making it harder for investors to sue over claims of securities fraud. This bill is a companion to the one that would discourage personal injury suits by such steps as limiting damages.

Not yet ready for action but strongly supported by Speaker Gingrich and hence likely to move ahead is legislation aimed at the Food and Drug Administration. It would make the FDA ease up on its standards for new drugs and medical devices or, alternatively, move the testing and approval functions to a new, less rigorous agency.

Another planned attack is on payments for children with disabilities, under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Some 900,000 poor children suffering from cerebral palsy, mental illness or other conditions now receive a maximum of $458 a month.

Looking at that list of actions taken and planned, one can hardly miss the theme. The purpose of one measure after another is to enrich those who have money and power in our society and reduce the modest help this country gives to the poor and the weak.

Manufacturers and drug companies would gain. Sick children and poor mothers would lose. But the harm would not be limited to those particular classes. All of us would be affected.

Anyone, rich or poor, may be hurt by taking an untested drug. Or by eating meat containing bacteria that cause food poisoning.

When the House last week considered a Republican bill to forbid new federal regulations for a year, an amendment was offered to let the Agriculture Department go ahead with stricter meat inspection rules drafted after some fatal food poisonings. Republicans rejected the amendment. But they agreed to loopholes for regulations that business wants.

There are faults in our legal system and in federal regulations. But this will not be a better country for any of us if it is an America with more defrauded investors, more injured people without legal recourse and more ill-nourished children.

xxxx