EPA Being Judged by EPA’s Standards
In case any of our soldiers on the front lines (by which I mean our legislators elected to the Congress) should come across this liberal argument, I thought I’d point out one huge folly to aid them in their rebuttal. The title of the article summarizes the argument: “It’s Official: $1 Invested in EPA yields $10 in Benefits.” Whoa! A 1,000% return!? I damn well better put all my money in the EPA…or wait.
The key to understanding why this liberal argument fails comes from the article itself.
The analysis of the benefits of reducing mercury pollution demonstrates just how much we underestimate the benefits of environmental protections. For example, when it comes to reducing mercury pollution, the benefits are based on EPA’s estimates of increased wages of (higher IQ) children born to families that catch freshwater fish for their own consumption. (Emphasis added.)
WELL I’LL BE DAMNED! How GENIUS is the EPA!? They’ve actually gotten people to believe that they are perfectly capable of measuring their own performance, without any verification by independent parties! Can you imagine the liberal outcry if this were the case for companies in today’s world—if their accounting reports were all internally produced and never verified by an independent, third party? There’d be at least twelve New York Times editorials about it a week!
See, liberals somehow think that government is a more holy and pure institution than corporate America—that somehow, because it’s officers are elected by the populace (who cares more about watching Dancing with the Stars than they do about what’s going on in Washington) that they are somehow more trustworthy, more holy, more pure, than the men and women who worked at Enron and WorldCom. HA! The laughs.
Anyway, there you go. The liberal argument that the EPA is a profitable investment for the American people falls short in that it fails to consider that the standard by which the alleged benefits of investment are being measured is the EPA’s own internal reporting.