Tuesday, April 19, 2011

GOP Looks to End Costly EPA Regulations

Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism


Today Rational Nation USA features guest contributor Scott P.'s article on the burdensome costs of over regulation and the impact on business. Scott is a health, safety, and political advocate with a passion for economics. He is an aspiring journalist who currently resides in the South East United States.

In corporate culture, the EPA is widely known for its pressuring regulations that have been never-ending, costly, and confusing to business owners. These regulations are largely viewed as one of the main reasons for reduced revenue for a number of factories and plants, as well as effecting the job growth in the process. Lately there’s been a backlash from both the GOP and business leaders towards the EPA regulations.

Throughout the early part of the year 2011, the GOP has worked to end this constraint that the EPA is taking over industry. They’ve worked to introduce a budget proposal to the EPA that would cut it by over 30 percent, combined with a number of acts brought forth to lessen the EPA’s power. The Energy Tax Prevention Act, introduced this year, would do battle with the Clean Air Act and aim to put an end to the Cap and Trade agenda, which is used to oversee and regulate gas emissions from businesses.

Cutting the budget for the EPA has remained a major goal of the GOP and big business for a while now. Barack Obama was put under pressure earlier this year and made cuts to the EPA’s budget, but they were very inconsequential. The cuts introduced by the President this year would’ve only reduced the EPA’s budget by about 10 percent and only take away a few programs. The Clean Air Act didn’t happen to be one of the programs that was intended to be cut or weakened and none of the cuts from the President would’ve had any effect on taking away some of the regulations that plague business. The GOP saw fit to further the cuts introduced by Barack Obama, aiming for a third of the EPA’s 2010 budget to be slashed, thus lowering the resources to some programs that they view to be inconsequential and hurtful to revenue, such as the Clean Air Act.

The GOP doesn’t necessarily believe that the EPA is a useless organization; they just believe that their resources are overflowing and not out of necessity. Perhaps a re-allocation of some of the EPA’s resources would be more beneficial in the end. It’s a wonder why the EPA doesn’t focus more on programs that have an effect on cutting down common environmentally related health problems, such as asthma, mesothelioma, and respiratory issues. For example, a program like the asbestos abatement initiative helps to save a number of lives a year and could stand to use some more of the EPA’s effort and resources. Removing asbestos from areas all over the country may not have as high of a social awareness and knowledge with people as the Clean Air Act does, but it often has a direct impact on people who may be in life threatening situations. These asbestos related health issues can be extremely dangerous, for instance mesothelioma life expectancy happens to be extremely severe and short. Certainly the EPA has a number of other programs that could be more efficient and direct in impacting the people of the country, rather than something like the Clean Air Act.

The GOP has been clear that they aren’t looking to effect the environment and make it polluted. They want what we all do, clean air and clean environment. They just feel that some of the major regulations that the EPA levies have minimal positive environmental impact and a major negative industrial impact. Hopefully in the near future, some of these regulations can be altered or cut to help businesses and employment grow, without having to give up a clean environment.

Editors Note: The preceeding article represents the exclusive views of the author. It does not necessarily represent in total the views of Rational Nation USA.

12 comments:

  1. Just out of curiosity - is there such a thing as a responsible Republican?

    The SCOTUS is hearing arguments today about whether the EPA has the power to regulate industrial emissions to reduce greenhouse gases. This is a SCOTUS prerogative, as there are constitutional issues irresponsible Republicans can not just legislate around.

    We shall see...

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Boy, talk about trying to put lipstick on a pig!

    Abestos Abatement Program is run by OSHA, which is part of the Department of Labor...which is a department that Rand Paul has demanded is totally defunded.

    So is he arguing that Rand Paul is wrong in wanting to defund a department that does great work? Or is he trying to confuse readers by claiming that the ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency should start being the OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY?

    Hmm.....looks like someone's trying to put lipstick on a pig to me!

    ReplyDelete
  3. JMJ: But responsible Republicans can make laws banning the EPA from doing anything about carbon dioxide. This is how these things are supposed to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >>Just out of curiosity - is there such a thing as a responsible Republican?
    -------------

    JMJ,

    Hmmm. Could not the same be said about ANY politician? Sure it could. Do I need to point to the then Democrat-controlled 111th Congress and the massive irresponsible spending that took place under their watch? I think we're past all this, aren't we? You say, I say, you say, I say, and so on and so on...

    Let's just get the morons of ALL political stripes and agendas outta DC and put some real servants in! How does that sound?

    Donald in Bethel, CT

    ReplyDelete
  5. >a department that does great work

    No, no, no. He's talking about the EPA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh wonderful...back to the good old days when the Cayahoga River kept catching fire...

    ReplyDelete
  7. BB: Liberal democrats started that fire!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Donald,

    You really want to cut the EPA? The Environmental Protection Agency? That 10 1/2 billion dollar agency that serves to keep our environment as clean as legally possible. This you want to cut in a country that's spending 3 1/2 trillion a year?

    It's like kicking a baby bird. Why do you guys focus on stuff like this?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  9. Did anyone but me just notice how out of touch JMJ is? Did I say anything about the EPA? I was actually trying to build a common ground here and point out that both the GOP and the Dems have morons representing their own agendas and not the expressed will of the People, and JMJ responds like he is...whatever the hell he is.

    JMJ, one more time because apparently you missed it:
    "Let's just get the morons of ALL political stripes and agendas outta DC and put some real servants in! How does that sound?"

    Dude. You need help. Your liberalism has fried your brain.

    Donald in Bethel, CT

    ReplyDelete
  10. Donald,

    We're obviously not on the same page. Let's try to sort this out.

    I was talking about this post that we're commenting on now. I thought you were too.

    Ya' know? About cutting the EPA???

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  11. JMJ. The 3.5 trillion consists is made up of nothing but "Baby birds" of waste that someone will defend to the death.

    I'm sure there's even a lot of waste inside the EPA that can be cut without changing what it does, especially if it is a typical government agency top-loaded with overpaid nomenclatura. Perhaps most of the agency can be privatized, in a competitive process that awards the job to an outfit that does all of the job for the least cost.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Speaking of the EPA, I actually came across an article today that I think you may or may not have seen already, but it sheds a pretty good light on the current situation with the EPA and the “Haze Plan” that some seem to be pushing. Either way, it just came out in the Albuquerque Journal and is ranked as one of the top current articles regarding the EPA, so I thought I’d share it with you nonetheless. If you’re up for a glance, here’s a link http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=93P42TS46AM&preview=article&linkid=a2c15c0c-b9ae-4983-afac-9715fc90ded9&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d

    Have a good one!

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.