My guess is that it ran along the lines of, "Why should taxpayers foot this entire bill? Why aren't the companies who will make the profits paying for the work to assess and approve, or not, their products?" You can see the logic and fairness of this argument, and though I don't know who was behind the institution of it as policy, it r…
My guess is that it ran along the lines of, "Why should taxpayers foot this entire bill? Why aren't the companies who will make the profits paying for the work to assess and approve, or not, their products?" You can see the logic and fairness of this argument, and though I don't know who was behind the institution of it as policy, it reminds me of the general ideas and policies of the Reagan era. I can also imagine that, since so much money in regulatory burden and possible future profits (or only losses) were at stake, that companies trying to get products through the regulatory agencies did everything they could behind the scenes to influence the outcome. Perhaps it was thought that instituting user fees would at least put the money flow into the open.
My guess is that it ran along the lines of, "Why should taxpayers foot this entire bill? Why aren't the companies who will make the profits paying for the work to assess and approve, or not, their products?" You can see the logic and fairness of this argument, and though I don't know who was behind the institution of it as policy, it reminds me of the general ideas and policies of the Reagan era. I can also imagine that, since so much money in regulatory burden and possible future profits (or only losses) were at stake, that companies trying to get products through the regulatory agencies did everything they could behind the scenes to influence the outcome. Perhaps it was thought that instituting user fees would at least put the money flow into the open.