Questioning Motives, Benefits, Costs and Ultimate Effect
Note: This article was written by Author Douglas Castle for publication in BRAINTENANCE, THE GLOBAL FUTURIST , TAKING COMMAND! and THE NATIONAL NETWORKER RSS and Daily email feeds (which are available to the public at no charge). This article may be reprinted, re-published or transmitted without the consent of the author provided that the article is published intact, unedited and in its entirety, and that all links contained herein are left live for the reader’s reference. You may become a Member of The National Networker Global Interworked Cooperative Business Community and receive our publications (free) by clicking on http://twitlik.com/IN.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to set down some new, strict, health standards for companies which generate any type of waste products. My preliminary analysis (in brief) of this policy is set forth below a reprint of the article which happened to inspire me to say "I told you so." But I’m not going to do that, as appropriate as that may be. Analyzing this bit of news about a governmental agency policy is a wonderful intellectual/ brain-building and policymaking/ strategic planning exercise. For those of you who are new to this, here’s how we play the game:
Firstly, read the article excerpted from THE NEW YORK TIMES which follows; secondly, click the back button and take a look at my findings and see how yours compare. Remember: No peeking at my answers until you have had an opportunity to form your own opinions!
And now (cue drumroll), the article —
Breaking News AlertThe New York Times
Thu, January 07, 2010 — 11:44 AM ET
E.P.A. Announces Strict New Health Standards for Smog
The Environmental Protection Agency’s new limits — which are
presented as a range — will likely put hundreds more
counties nationwide in violation, a designation that will
require them to find additional ways to clamp down on
pollution or face government sanctions, most likely the loss
of federal highway dollars.
Okay. Now that you’ve had an opportunity to preview the policy, compare your findings with mine:
1. MOTIVES – A power-grab by the EPA to further regulate industry under the guise of environmental protection and being green-compliant. A money-grab by the federal government to fund its burgeoning deficit by making counties pay a ransom to the federal government — it’s a sort of reverse federal-aid program to save the federal government money, and to actually collect more tax, penalty and compliance dollars from the counties in every city and state. The federal government is grabbing the near empty wallet of a fellow (metaphorically) already walking to bankrupcy court. [The fellow is waking because he has lost his job and cannot afford cabfare, and because his own automobile is excreting too much CO2, the deadly greenhouse gas that is integral for photosynthesis….but that’s another tale].
2. BENEFITS – The federal government, the EPA and scores of attorneys will benefit. The environment (and the people who choose to continue living in it) will benefit by a reduction in potentially toxic factory emissions and cleaner air. Ahhhhh!
3. COSTS – All borne by the taxpaying public, businesses (the costs of regulatory compliance are generally quite high). There will be increased incentives for businesses, jobs and talent to go overseas. There will be reduced industrial output in the US, decreasing employment, and other additional hardships to numerous to list. Service businesses, which shouldn’t be as immediately and precipitously impacted, will feel the pinch as county tax bases are reduced and greater tax burdens are placed upon them.
4. ULTIMATE EFFECT – Negative for all US residents employed (or unemployed) in the private sector. Economically contractionary.
Now: How does your analysis stack up beside mine? You can comment on this article by clicking on:
Please remember to put the words "EPA POLICY" in the subject line of your message.