Saturday, December 17, 2011

New EPA rule will cost each taxpaying American $280

By the EPA's own admission, power plants will have to spend $10.6 billion over the next four years to meet new, more stringent standards for anti-pollution controls. The EPA says that these measures will "save $59 billion to $140 billion in annual health costs, preventing 17,000 premature deaths a year along with illnesses and lost workdays."

Of course, just how those ridiculous figures were arrived at is anyone's guess, because the EPA doesn't make that research readily available. Think about it: those statistics are, at face value, patently false. We have 17,000 premature deaths a year thanks to dirty air? Sure we do. And a secret town in Kansas is the source of all baby unicorns.

No, this is another step to de-industrialize America and to "fundamentally transform" our nation into some sort of backwater country. Maybe it's payback, our chickens coming home to roost, in the words of one Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

All that said, what's the impact of these outrageous rules on Americans?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 153,683,000 civilians in the workforce (as of Nov. 2011).

Let's assume that each of these private sector employees are responsible for an equal amount of the EPA's egregious tolls. But Doug, you might say, don't public sector employees also have to pay these bills? Sure, but since the public sector is funded entirely by the private sector, they don't count in this calculation.

Furthermore, only half of workers pay net taxes to the government.

Here's what the EPA's disgusting new rules will cost each of us: $140. Every American will have to pay an additional $140 (really, figure double that because of markup and government inefficiency in these estimates) for the privilege of attaining some arbitrary new air-cleanliness standard that has no merit and no scientific basis.

Kind of like the billions we piss away on the global warming scam.

This administration simply must be turned out of office in 2012 if we are to save this country.


hermanseele said...

The essayist disputes the idea that 17,000 die prematurely due to air pollution. Well, of course, the amount is either zero or greater than zero, and I doubt that any rational person would claim that it is zero. So, if the essayist disputes the 17,000, well then, what is the correct number? Show us how the EPA is lying (if it is in fact lying) and back up your arguments with scientific evidence.
Otherwise, please shut the hell up.

directorblue said...

Hey, Herman -- if that is your real name -- stop allowing bureaucrats to bully you without proof.

See, we have this document that politicians take an oath to uphold. It's called the U.S. Constitution. Tell me where the EPA is authorized. Is that next to the abortion and gay marriage clauses?

Now, call your Mom and have her make you another PB&J and bring it down to the basement.