EPA Regulations Require 230,000 New Gov Jobs Cost 21 Billion

[Cowboy]

Well thats ONE way to add more jobs.

The [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Environmental [COLOR=green !important]Protection[/COLOR][/COLOR] Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.
The EPA aims to regulate [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]greenhouse [COLOR=green !important]gas [/COLOR][COLOR=green !important]emissions[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]EPA[/COLOR][/COLOR] explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.
The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.
These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. “While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance … may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds,” the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.
The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]cost[/COLOR][/COLOR] of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves.
“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.
The petitioner suing the EPA is the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, a trade group reportedly linked to domestic chemical companies.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/e...30000-new-employees-21-billion/#ixzz1ZAV54D6h[/COLOR]​

 

[300 H and H]

Don't these idiots know our country is going broke? An they are one of the reasons? Geesh....

Here is a link to a story of a California judge who gets it...And some EPA officials who should be fired as a result. Interesting reading for sure, and represents how the EPA goes about doing it's business. To bad the judge is retiring this year.

http://www.conservativeactionalerts....al-scientists/



Congress should be ashamed, as the gubbermint agencies are now operating on auto pilot, with no oversite.

Regards, Kirk

 

[jimbo]

Congeress shold be ashamed, as the agencies are now operating on auto pilot, with no oversite.

Therein lies the real problem. We don't need to get rid of the bureaucracies as much as those elected to keep them under control. We've got bureaucracies as small as 12, in the case of NLRB, to millions, in the case of the EPA, who are controlling business in the country.

 

[300 H and H]

While our leaders in D.C. bicker like school childern......and get nothing done.

Yup it's time for big change, and oversite of the agencies should be high on the list.

Regards, Kirk

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

The EPA has out grown its mandate and needs to be abolished. There is no other solution to this issue.

 

[jimbo]

The EPA has out grown its mandate and needs to be abolished. There is no other solution to this issue.

Along with Education, NLRB, and a host of others

 

[300 H and H]

I see your point about abolishment....But I wouldn't go that far. There is a need, they just outstripped what they were supposed to be doing. Not to mention they are in the pockets of the greenies....

Got to be a way to change that right? If only congress were doing what needs to be done, for so long now. Just as with the budget crisis they are doing nothing but arguing, and nothing gets done. They have been asleep at the switch for a very long time. This is why we are in the mess we find ourselves. I just sent Grassley a PM telling him to get to the heart of the EPA and the ATF. Turn them on their ears, and take a close look. Then do what needs to be done. Or else...

Regards, Kirk

 

[Melensdad]

I am another one who will agree with ABOLISHMENT.

I'm NOT saying we don't need them. BUT what I would say is start over with a blank sheet of paper and design a new, MUCH SMALLER, MUCH LESS INTRUSIVE, department to completely replace the EPA.

I think the current EPA is a cancer and cannot be cured. Better to start fresh.

 

[300 H and H]

But with congress locked in stale mate, can that ever happen?

Maybe start with them first? Cull the herd?

Regards, Kirk

 

[Melensdad]

...with congress locked in stale mate...

And thank goodness they are locked in a state mate. Can you imagine how bad things could get if we returned to a Pelosi run House and a Reid run Senate to unleash these EPA dogs again!?! We had a couple years of that and now we are seeing how bad things got as the EPA is ratcheting up its regulations from that orgy of bad legislation and ideas.

We need to keep them locked in a stale mate to prevent more of this crap.

Then, when, or better yet IF, we ever get an administration that actually uses common sense, then and only then can we unleash a complimentary congress.

 

[SShepherd]

And thank goodness they are locked in a state mate. Can you imagine how bad things could get if we returned to a Pelosi run House and a Reid run Senate to unleash these EPA dogs again!?! We had a couple years of that and now we are seeing how bad things got as the EPA is ratcheting up its regulations from that orgy of bad legislation and ideas.

We need to keep them locked in a stale mate to prevent more of this crap.

Then, when, or better yet IF, we ever get an administration that actually uses common sense, then and only then can we unleash a complimentary congress.

that's my feeling. The best govt. is one that's in deadlock. For some reason poloticians think they're not doing their job unless they sponsor/pass a new law or spend more money.

 

[thcri]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had some politicians that got rid of laws instead of making new ones.

 

[300 H and H]

Melensdad,

A some what surprising answer I guess I had not considereed. But you are absolutely correct, stalemate in this case is a very good thing. But one has to wonder if that is a good way to "run the railroad" in the long run. Grid lock seems to me to be a mixed blessing. New laws we don't need. But action on many other fronts, like funding our debt, that lowered our credit rating, not so good. Funny how when the banks were "going broke" how fast congress did something. But then again, I think they should have let those wall steet banks go broke. I bet smaller banks could have picked up what was left, and life would have went on.

Grid lock....it depends on the subject to some dregree, if it's a good thing.

Regards, Kirk

 

[SShepherd]

the sad thing

after things like this people still believe govt. run healthcare will be less expencive and a "good idea for everyone"