Republican Party

Safety Regulations? Who needs’em?

House Republicans voted to reduce the budget of the FAA by $4 billion dollars today while also claiming that the agency should be able to do just fine without.

I don't know if anyone has reminded them lately, but $4 billion is actually quite a lot of money and it doesn't just fly out the window without compromising operations or skimping on safety whether that means fewer employees working longer hours or spending less on maintenance.

WASHINGTON – A sweeping aviation bill that could thwart proposed new safety regulations, including one that would prevent tired pilots from flying, passed the House Friday.

The $59.7 billion Republican-drafted bill is a blueprint for Federal Aviation Administration programs for the next three and a half years. It cuts the agency's budget by $4 billion, money GOP lawmakers said the agency can do without. Democrats said the cuts would endanger air safety.

The bill passed on a 223 to 196 mostly party line vote. It would require the FAA to tailor regulations to different segments of the aviation industry rather than set across-the-board safety standards. It also would prohibit new safety regulations if the agency can't justify the costs to the industry.

So the Republicans are now on record for being against preventing tired pilots from flying. And the next time a plane crashes or flies off-course because the pilots were asleep, they will be the first ones decrying the FAA's standards while giving the airline which overscheduled their pilots a pass.

I can just imagine the congressional hearings now. There will be a chorus of "excessive government regulation prevented us from staying awake because we spent so much time adhering to all these rules."

By the way, it was only a week ago that two planes landed in D.C. while the air traffic controller was asleep. Now the Republican controlled House of Representatives has voted to "prohibit new safety regulations" from being implemented if the cost can't be justified. Because, ya' know, we might not be able to afford the cost of preventing catastrophe, but we can always afford another tax cut.