alfadriver wrote:
And the EPA is accountable to the tax payer.
This is absurd on its face. They are accountable to the Executive branch, and given regulatory power at creation. How it can be that the executive branch can essentially propose and implement laws without a vote seems quite the conundrum under our constitutional system. Oh, we call them regulations pursuant to the act, which has already been voted on, but the effect is the very same.
The regulations are supposed to serve the act that created agency, but with just this amendment being 629 pages, and for what must be literally thousands upon thousands of regulations, it would be more than a full time job to attend all the meetings and open hearings that alfadriver suggests we all participate in.
Oh, well, the executive branch is subject to the taxpayer voting them in or out. But they still have the same practical problem that we the citizens do - an incredible number of regulations that would take far more than four or eight years to master.
By the time a regulation becomes a problem which requires a fix in the opinion of some, but not others, a horrendous amount of money will be spent on lawyers to curb an out of control agency. See the stories on the Clean Air Act regulation that just had a stay applied, involving some ridiculous number of states and other private plaintiffs.
If there were any accountability in the EPA at all, it'd have never gotten to the point where the Surpreme Court decided the stay.
As someone prior pointed out:
there are people out there that don't think that people should be allowed to work on their own stuff, and that modifying something in any way that deviates from the way it left the factory is something that should never, ever be done.
and some of those people work for the government. they are bureaucrats that live and work in their own little world, surrounded by like minded people, that have little knowledge of the ways that the stuff they dream up affects anyone else or how much it would cost to implement and enforce.
What problem are they trying to solve? How much of a factor are these things that are the "problem"? In a country of 300 million people, and 250 million cars, how much of a problem do these loopholes represent? .00001% of all emission?
At what point are they doing "good work for the sake of good work" with no practical impact, and whose rights are they trampling on in order to do it?
The same argument has been had over and over about the safety standards required in new cars - if there were a profitable market to produce a lightweight car with roll up windows, no ac, no 5mph bumpers, no air bags, and no anti lock brakes it would be illegal to produce.
Do I have the right to buy such a car? Do I have the right to produce such a car?
Ironically, that car describes what a lot of people on this board would drive (once some other sucker bought it and took the hit on depreciation so we could buy it for pennies on the dollar - yet another common argument on this board!).
As someone on the other thread termed it, I'd like to contribute to SEMAs "marketing effort".