Today’s question is for Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, who fancies himself as the author of a compromise in the battle in Congress over the Environmental Protection Agency. How much money will it cost, Mr. Olson, to fully calculate the price of environmental regulation?
Nothing is free and little comes cheap. Olson needs to remember that as he calls for adding to a regulatory burden that already includes cost analyses. His call for a calculation of how many jobs a given regulation might eliminate, as he seems to fear, or else create might even require hiring more scientists and economic analysts.
Think of the mischief that could bring about. Someone else in Congress might demand to know how much it costs to find out how much it costs for the EPA to do its job.
One might think that some 40 years after the EPA was created, its role in making sure the air we breathe and the water we drink are clean and free of pollutants would be accepted. One might think that critics of government would focus their attention on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — if not Libya, too. That, or, say, what’s still the scant success of the Obama administration in creating jobs.
No, alas. It’s the EPA that has some people — Olson included — so occupied, to the point where they want to restrict its power before they vote to provide the money to keep the federal government functioning for the rest of the fiscal year.
The Albany, N.Y.,Times Union (April 1)