The Cry Wolf Quote Bank chronicles the false predictions and hyperbole by opponents of these laws and protections. While the issues and specific policies change over time, the rhetoric and themes remained the same. You can search the Quote Bank for what opponents said to prevent these laws from passing. Using the drop down menus on the right their statements by issue, by specific law, by who said it and by the core themes they evoke. Elsewhere on the site, you can find articles, studies, and other material that debunks their claims.
Proposed new subsection 10(k) in section 4 of the bill (page 43, line 8), would prohibit the Federal Government from entering into contracts with, or providing financial assistance to, any person whose facilities are not in compliance with water quality standards…..This provision, as written, seems unwieldy. It could not be faithfully carried out without generating a tremendous amount of unnecessary paperwork and inconvenience for all concerned—Federal and State agencies, as well as industry.
Under the [Democratic] bill, according to the [Chamber], ‘employers would be treated worse than criminals,’ and there would be ‘penalties on the innocent’
The industry representatives also object to a requirement in [the Democratic] bill that employers provide ‘a place of employment which is safe and healthful’ as being ‘vague and undefined’ and possibly unconstitutional.
We feel that the new plant should have equipment installed to abate pollution that meets and exceeds the established standards. If I recognize what you are driving at, company XYZ could come out with a piece of equipment that could be extremely expensive that would eliminate all pollution whatsoever and if I were to agree with your question, that would mean that all of your industry would then have to buy that piece of equipment from company XYZ with the basis against all other companies that are producing pollution equipment. I don’t think that is the objective of free enterprise.
Class actions constitute a grave economic hazard to business—and the magnitude of the threat is likely to be in inverse relationship to the size of the business. Indeed, the effects on small businesses would be particularly catastrophic if not fatal.
[L]egal costs alone of defending against class actions will impact disproportionately on small enterprises which rarely have the resources to employ the staff counsel uniformly found among larger companies.
The class action concept is misdirected and does not meet the overriding need of establishing a workable method to prevent frauds and deceptions. At best, class actions are only remedial to the consumer. At worst, they are a deceptive promise of prevention which the consumer is unlikely to see fulfilled. This is especially true of the low-income consumer who is the typical prey of unscrupulous operators, particularly in inner-city areas.
The truly attractive targets would be the overwhelming majority of businesses which are honest, ethical, and legitimate—large companies because of their assets and small merchants because of their vulnerabilities.
To the extent that [this legislation] seeks to make varying warranties fit into identical standards, it discourages competitive diversity from coming into play, and to that extent fails to serve the interests of either consumers or business.
[W]e believe that voluntary progress has been sufficient to warrant a continued extension of the legislative moratorium on warranties and guarantees. We believe that business should, and will, act to implement the ‘full disclosure’ warranties statement adopted last year by the Chamber.
