To "WHAT NOW? | 6:33 p.m." I have little faith in the Federal Court
system. You should know that I have even less faith in Federal Government
oversight, and in the Federal Government in general.
Red Shirt/procuradorfiscal:Thank both of you for taking the time to
consider and write a response to my comment.One final question:Regarding your faith in the court system, if by some miracle, the
Affordable Healthcare Bill is deemed constitutional, I wonder if your
"faith" in the judicial system will rival mine (re: Citizens United)?
To "WHAT NOW? | 2:03 p.m." again, how does getting rid of the EPA
prevent regulations from being enacted by Congress, as they currently are? What
other liberals have claimed today is that the EPA is merely an enforcement arm
of the government that does not create rules or regulations.So, if
we got rid of the Federal EPA in favor of state run EPA offices, what would
change? The environmental protection laws would still be in place, and would be
enforced.The onlything that could change would be EPA created rules
and regulations that have not passed through congress, but according to the
liberals that does not happen.
Re: "Since "compromise" has become toxic, how do two competing
interests find common ground?"Maybe they don't. That's why
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution extends the judicial power to
controversies between 2 states. In practice, adjoining states are much more
likely to agree than litigate, but the courts are there, if needed.All meaningful environmental regulation is accomplished at the state level,
anyway, at a much lower cost and with much better results than when the EPA
steps in directly.The federal EPA exists today solely as a sop to
tiny, but well-funded radical special-interest groups, who contribute way too
heavily to politicians of all stripe.Those special interests and
bureaucratic inertia are all that stand between us and reasonable, well-run,
much more efficient environmental regulators.
Red Shirt/procuradorfiscal:"...have State EPA
agencies..."."...Turn over environmental regulation to the
states...".One example:A contiguous state, Nevada,
approves the construction of a coal-fired or a series of coal-fired plants along
a common border. The prevailing wind carries the "pollution" from
Nevada into Utah. Nevada has a need for jobs as well as an improved tax base;
Utah has a need for clean air. Since you tend to advocate for
"States Rights", how does this case get resolved, when "states
rights" are considered supreme, yet each state has a compelling rationale
for their respective positions?If the two states cannot resolve
their differences, what next?The SCOTUS has proven to be for sale to
the highest bidder (Citizens United).Clean air in Utah becomes a
secondary distant dream compared to the primary reality of corporate donations
flowing into the coffers of the powerbrokers/decision makers/change agents in
DC?If Nevada or Utah don't get their way, do they leave the country
ala Rick Perry?Since "compromise" has become toxic, how do
two competing interests find common ground?
procuradorfiscal | 12:13 p.m. Sept. 13, 2011 Tooele, UTRe: "But
most Americans aren't joining in the political pummeling of the EPA."No they're NOT.and the states have proven their in ability
to make environmental decisions that benefit Citizens instead of lobbyists
buying politicians, see Kennecott get what they wish see magcorp pollute more
see Lee wants to import radioaactive waste.
Re: "But most Americans aren't joining in the political pummeling of the
EPA."Yeah they are.It's really only out-of-touch
rich guys, like physicians, and their allies in Hollywood and academe, together
with a few back-East, left-coast, and East-bench liberals that don't mind the
countless billions in extra regulatory and bureaucratic expense we have added to
the cost of our goods and services to support the few uber-radical greenies who
refuse to admit that the EPA has worked itself out of a job.Turn
over environmental regulation to the states, who know best the proper way to
balance the competing interests, and have the most to gain from clean air and
I will now quote first: "Chinese authorities admit that 750,000 of their
citizens die from air pollution and 60,000 from water pollution annually.
Outside organizations think that is a gross underestimation. The Chinese
Ministry of Health admits pollution has made cancer the leading cause of death
in China, followed by respiratory and heart diseases, also related to air
pollution. Only 1 percent of the country's 560 million city dwellers breathe air
considered safe by the European Union. All of China's major cities are
constantly blanketed by the same choking, toxic gray shroud, the "China
Syndrome."" We saw this when they had their Olimpics over there.
Here's what we don't see. The Koch brothers are being among the 17 polluters
and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming. Koch brothers'
network works hard to advance a right-wing ideological agenda that helps their
businesses reap more profits at the expense of our environment, our economy, and
the American middle class. Understanding how they operate is the first step in
countering their efforts to reshape our nations laws to benefit the wealthy even
more than they do today. Don't go there about of smoking related
False analogy -- the Chinese and Americans do not think the same about industry
or environment (or many other things!) What is happening there would not happen
here for that reason.
Re: Irony Guy | 1:30 a.m. Sept. 13, 2011 443,000 Americans die each
year of smoking related illnesses. I have to chuckle when I hear smokers
complaining about the quality of our air. Thank goodness Republicans in Utah
pushed the Clean Air Act which forces smokers to exhale outside.
@Red Shirt You're incorrect. Lots of national GOP candidates support
deregulation and privatization in an effort to shift more power to states and
make more money for corporations with no rules(again think China.) Lots of GOP
led states are advocating for state sovereignty. Current Utah delegates seek
(via a lawsuit with the federal government)to drill on federal lands and refuse
to protect ANY "jewels" of our wilderness areas in UT which are
numerous. You don't have to be an environmental activist to think this doesn't
make any sense for the human beings, the voters, in our nation.
Come on Utah We can beat China in pollution we were number 1 several times last
year.Our goal should be to not be able to see any mountains surrounding
our valleys.GOP- Government of Polluters
How does getting rid of the EPA equate to deregulation? None of the canidates
have called for deregulation. The EPA should be done away with, and have state
EPA like agencies there to enforce state and federal environmental laws.
Did you really say that Republicans are responsible for the 'Asian Brown Cloud,?
People should pay closer attention to the countries of the world that are living
examples of nations that have fully embraced GOP/Tea Party values. China's
toxic air and water are testaments to the consequences of letting corporate
profits take priority over public health. Iran's brutal, repressive theocracy is
a testament to what happens when the line of separation between church and state
Environmental degradation doesn't bother the Perry-Bachmann axis. Heaven only
knows why these people call themselves "conservatives" when they are
against conserving anything.