Keeping Up With the Competition II: Enough with the Regulations, Already

Here's the best news that isn't fit to print. The Environmental Protection Agency released its annual report on air quality trends. And guess what? Our air is much cleaner today than it was forty years ago. That's no real surprise. It's also gotten much cleaner over the last twenty years than the previous twenty years. Again, that's not much of a surprise either.

The surprise is that this wasn't reported by the MSM.

So, what accounts for the embargo on what should be considered good news and a story of success against the ravages of mankind upon the planet? Could it be that this information is being smothered in an attempt to convince the public we still need the Cap and Trade Bill?

Even more important is this question:  How much regulation is enough?

It's becoming clear that what we're doing is working, and judging from this report, working quite well, thank you. But at what point does regulation begin to become counterproductive, costing more in regulatory fees, fines, and unecessary lawsuits? And how much cost is added to the price of doing business because of them? Also, are we hanging a regulatory millstone around the neck of American businesses that other countries don't?

To answer this question, we need look no further than California. Their Legislative and Analytic Office is now starting to see the negative effects of too much regulation. The report notes the exodus of businesses from the state due to environmental overregulation and the negative impact on job creation that logically follows. The next thing to fall is tax income for the state, which results is spending deficits when politicians won't stop spending.

One would think that with a warning sign the size of the state of California, that Washington and the Obama administration would at least consider the possiblity that overregulation will significantly hamper our ability to compete in the global marketplace. This doesn't seem to be the case. Instead, EPA head Lisa Jackson has indicated in an interview with Forbes online that her agency will increase the regulatory pressure on American businesses. She states:

I think it's fair to say that, yes, we will be putting out more rules.

She goes on to laud an activist role for the agency,

I would definitely describe it as an active EPA. And proactive. "Activist" calls to mind the idea that we only have one point of view. What I've said is that we have to be driven by science and the law. The laws that we have in this country to govern environmental matters are extremely powerful, and in many cases just need to be used and used consistently. Maybe progressive would be a word I feel more comfortable with.

If Ms. Jackson were at all driven by science, she'd know that ClimatedGate has blown an enormous hole in the theory of man-made "climate change". If she were at all sincere, she's be hesitant to push for more and more restrictive regulations in light of the CRU emails showing a deliberate effort by "climate scientists" to omit and manipulate climate data to twist the outcome into something less than the truth.

It's this blog's opinion that we've been very effective with the environmental regulations we've put in place over the years.

It's time for us to consider a moratorium on any new environmental regulations for a minimum of three years and a reduction in the funding of the EPA.

Our ability to compete with the rest of the world depend upon it.

How to Know When Government Becomes Too Large

Ever heard of a "delta smelt"? Neither had this blog until several month ago when Sean Hannity took a road trip to what was once fertile farmland in California. He highlighted the consequences of the Endangered Species Act where people were denied water for farming by their own government. In a clear and blatant violation of the Constitutions' provision to "promote the general welfare", zealous environmentalists ignored  their fellow citizens and placed the needs of a fish above those of humans. The cost has been high, with farmers, forced out of business by a misguided law using food banks and unemployment just to get by.

That's one example. Here's another from California.

Their new energy efficiency regulations for televisions. The goal is to reduce the energy consumption of TV's by 49%. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Right up until you ask yourself why the government would care what type of television you purchase. Isn't that, you know, outside their authority? Is there a provision in the Constitution for the regulation of televisions? Won't these regulations increase the cost of a new TV? When did watching a television become anyone else's business.

That's two. There are many, many more.

This is becoming important for economic as well as legal reasons. One of the primary differences between conservatives and "progressives" is that we conservatives recognize that in order for there to be freedom, the influence of government must have a limit. A line beyond which government cannot go. "Progressives" don't recognize any limits to the power of government and seek to expand it into every nook and cranny of private life, whether there is a valid need or not. California's regulations for televisions is a prime example.

When government has become large enough to add significant costs in the private sector where there was previously no such interference, it's time to question whether things have gotten out of hand. In the case of environmental regulation, there is clear evidence that the law is working against us by forcing us to use products that in many cases are inferior in quality and don't work very well. In the case of California's delta smelt fiasco, it's plainly working against the interests of the people and should not be allowed to continue under any circumstances. The failure of the courts to prevent this gross abuse of power is a disgrace to the bench and an affront to every freedom-loving American.

It's time to ask some fundamental questions about the role of government in America. The first one should be this: Is our government working for us or against us?