Is there a role for regulation in our economy? There could be in some instances – to be a conservative who favors limited government isn’t necessarily the same as being an anarchist.
Even some of the EPA’s early regulations did some good. We don’t exactly hear about rivers catching fire anymore, and some amount of environmental regulation is just common sense, like not allowing chemical plants to dump in rivers. If certain companies find it more profitable to operate the more they pollute, it goes without saying that they’ll pollute more, since it’s “society” bearing the cost and not them.
But to support some regulation isn’t to support all – or even most of them. Even if we were to exclude all the EPA regulations that have accumulated before Obama’s presidency, the cost of those implemented just under Obama should cause one to ponder just how much power the agency should have.
By Obama’s last year in office, Obama’s EPA published nearly 4,000 new rules, which added $50 billion in annual costs to the economy. Those costs are mainly in the form of raising the cost of doing business, which naturally means higher prices, less production, lower wages, less employment, or some combination of all those factors. Basically, everyone loses.
The cost of all new regulations during Obama’s presidency total $1 trillion over ten years (or over $3,000 per person!). And as was the case with the EPA, this is just the cost of new regulations.
It’s a heck of a lot of red tape to cut through.
But OK – maybe all these regulations are necessary, some might retort. You can read through the specifics of Obama’s most costly ones and decide for yourself whether or not that’s the case – and your answer will likely be “hell no!”
Donald Trump took steps to address regulations just days within taking office, signing executive orders halting all proposed and pending regulations for review, and requiring two regulations to be repealed for every one new one created.
But that’s nothing compared to what could come from Congress, where Republicans could destroy the EPA with a single sentence!
A Florida legislator has unveiled a bill that, if passed by Congress, would put an end to the Environmental Protection Agency’s wasteful habits and overburdensome regulations.
Officially known as H.R. 861, the bill by Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz contains just one simple but telling line: “The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on Dec. 31, 2018.”
In an email reportedly sent to his colleagues prior to the bill’s unveiling on Feb. 3, Gaetz explained exactly why such drastic action was necessary, according to The Huffington Post, which claims to have obtained a copy of said email.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the EPA’s rules have hit “everyone from farmers to manufacturers to energy producers to construction companies” driving many either into crushing debt or outright closure.
H/T: Conservative Tribune
With the Senate just confirming Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, they’ve appointed a person sympathetic to dismantling it’s regulatory power.
While there is only the slimmest chance Congress would abolish the EPA, the combination of Pruitt and a Republican Congress is good news for employers and employees who produce!
What do you think? Would you totally abolish the EPA if you could?
