Bush and Mining Regulation

When the Sago mine disaster occurred in 2006, liberals were quick to blame President George W. Bush. According to liberal mythology, Bush rolled back safety regulations on the mining industry to appease his corporate backers. For liberals, this resulted in a lack of government oversight that contributed to the Sago tragedy, which took the lives of 12 people. Another mining disaster occurred in August 2007, in Utah. What is the liberal solution? Vote Democrat, since the Democratic Party favors more regulations. I have three responses to the liberal narrative.

1. The number of injuries and fatalities at coal mines has decreased under President Bush, according to statistics of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) (see Coal Mine Injuries and Fatalities, 1930 - 2006). During the Clinton Administration (1993-2000), the average number of injuries each year was 8,671. Under President Bush (2001-2006), the number has been 5,511. During the Clinton years, the average number of fatalities per year was 38.75. Under Bush, it's been 32.67.

A liberal blogger points out that mining activity is at an all time low in the U.S., so the percentage of injuries and fatalities has not necessarily declined. Okay, then, let's look at their rates. Under Clinton, the average annual rate of injuries at coal mines was 7.18 per cent. Under Bush, it's been 5.25 per cent. During the Clinton years, the average annual fatality rate was .035 per cent. Under Bush, it's been .032 per cent. So the number and the rate of injuries and fatalities at coal mines are lower under President Bush.

I say this because I am sick of the Clintons and their smug arrogance. Bill acts as if things were perfect under his Administration, and he expects us to swoon at his every word. The Clintons and the media continually tell us how brilliant Bill Clinton is, while they portray President Bush as a dunce. And Hillary has the audacity to criticize Bush's record on mining regulation, when her own husband presided over higher rates of injuries and fatalities at coal mines. The Clintons have no moral authority to criticize anyone, especially on mining policy.

2. On the August 24, 2007 Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill Maher was criticizing Bush's recess MSHA appointment, Dick Stickler, a former coal executive. Michel Martin of ABC and NPR (hardly a conservative) replied that Stickler has actually been tougher on coal companies than many expected him to be, since he has cited a number of them for safety violations. Many liberals assume that the Bush Administration is giving coal companies a free ride, but that is hardly the case.

The AFL-CIO asserts that Bush has sought to cut MSHA's budget, and it states that the number of MSHA staff has declined under his Administration (see here). Well, didn't that one liberal blogger say that coal mining activity is at an all time low (which seems to be true, according to MSHA's statistics--see PDF)? Maybe that's why Bush reduced MSHA's staff for certain years (aside from the fact that some MSHA employees passed away and were not immediately replaced). Overall, Bush seems to have roughly the same amount of inspectors per coal mine as Clinton did, if not more.

3. Who is to say that regulations are the only way to create mine safety? According to C. Gregory Ruffennach's article about mining regulations for the Cato Institute, the number of mining fatalities was actually declining before the 1969 Coal Act, which instituted federal regulations on coal mining. For Ruffennach, the 1969 regulations slowed down the decrease in fatalities because they valued rules over results, made coal miners feel less responsible for their own safety, and fostered antagonism rather than cooperation between the coal industry and the federal government.

Ruffennach offers some interesting documentation for his argument that regulations emphasize rules rather than results. He states that companies that come up with innovative methods for mine safety have to go through a lot of hassle before the government finally approves their proposals (if it approves them at all). Like most libertarians, Ruffennach trusts the free market to safeguard mine safety, since mine owners profit when their mines and miners are intact; when they are not, they lose economically. For Ruffennach, regulations cost mines a lot in terms of litigation, productivity, and paperwork, a cost that they pass on to consumers. While Ruffennach may be an idealistic libertarian, he raises good questions about the effectiveness of federal regulation in protecting miners.

At least Bush hasn't gone as far as Ruffennach would like!