GOP Looking to Cut Costly EPA Regulations?

by Scott P.

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 affect 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.

(Ed's Note: A health, safety, and political advocate with a passion for economics, Scott P. is an aspiring journalist who currently resides in the South East United States.)

Related discussion: Memeorandum.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.