**Written by Doug Powers
Last month Democrat Rep. Ed Markey from Massachusetts touted a wonderful side-effect of government regulations: more jobs. The EPA agrees and is trying to run with it more aggressively than ever.
From the Daily Caller:
The Environmental Protection 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 is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost 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.
That 230,000 number will probably become 345,000 as soon as somebody realizes that an additional regulator position will need to be added in order to regulate every two new regulators hired. After all, what’s the point of an unregulated regulator?
The EPA regards itself as a job creator, but not without the responsible creation of offsets. Even though these proposed new regulatory jobs may seem to take away from the other two areas the administration claims creates jobs — food stamps and unemployment checks — they wouldn’t. Any current White House economist worth his or her salt would tell you that in the Keynesian circle of economic life, these regs would create good paying government jobs, but the regulations themselves would wreak havoc on the private sector. If the number of people forced to go on economy-boosting food stamps and unemployment checks because of the regs is the same as those who got jobs enforcing the regs, symmetry in the delicate balance required for a healthy economy (according to numerous DC Democrats) would be preserved. And if it wasn’t, our hypothetical White House economist would just go back to work at the university.
Update: Herman Cain flashback from the GOP debate in Orlando: “Scrap the EPA and start over.”
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBeblog comments powered by Disqus
What other nastiness does global warming have in store for us? Future president Chelsea Clinton explains
March 23, 2017 04:45 PM by Doug Powers
March 15, 2017 10:02 PM by Doug Powers
The Academy Awards could rescue falling ratings with addition of ‘Outstanding Achievement in Eco-Hypocrisy’ category
February 28, 2017 11:28 AM by Doug Powers
February 28, 2017 09:37 AM by Doug Powers
2017 hits full stride early: Media slams White House & vice versa as witches cast spell on Trump admin
February 24, 2017 09:00 PM by Doug Powers