EPA... Today

I used to really like the idea of the EPA, though I always realized that they did have rather large structural flaws. The entire concept is flawed to begin with. Crude regulation can never capture the complexity of nature and evolution. We try to regulate it, but we end up looking a lot like command and control on a skipping record. Recently at a Mercatus Center conference command and control policies were referred to as a 1970's car: you don't drive a 1970's car in 2008. It's not efficient or effective. Environmental regulation needs to fit the paradigm of the new technology it represents. This does not mean troubleshooting technology with regulation. By no means should regulation ever be ahead of technology on the margin of creation. I don't pretend to know the solution; I just want to point to some relevant flaws in the EPA.

Flaw number one:
1) They have historically been the puppet of the executive branch of the government to expedite the creation of trendy-no-good-boondoggle regulations that are structured to promote a single technology over another. Example Clear Skies which if you read into you will soon figure out is nothing more than the Bush administration's attempt at making Coal look good. Garbage. Not to mention they screwed up mercury legislation. Mercury disperses locally (that's called point source pollution) not globally. Clear skies attempted to regulate a local pollution on a national scale.

2) The EPA fails to understand that "government funded research" does not compare with the productivity and creativity that is present in a competitive free market. the incentives just aren't there. This is not a hard concept everyone knows this to be true. If there is no system for checks and balances, measurement, accountability, and creative destruction than things don't get done well: if at all. I don't want to say stop funding all research. That would be overstepping lowly status as a know-it-all associate. Rather, I would like to ask the question, "Why do we fund research?" and when ever anyone answers that question with anything but "we shouldn't be funding research" counter them with another "why," then another "why," and maybe another "why." Depending on how stubborn the person is and or how creative they are the point, in theory, may become evident some time next week. EPA, please help entrepreneurs but don't give them money. It's like a fat kid in a candy shop; do as all the good children’s books say, stop feeding them candy! I want people to think of Olympic athletes when they think of American creativity, not couch potatoes playing wii.

3) The final flaw I wish to draw attention to is the newest and freshest new kid on the block. It is talked about here. I purposefully did not read the entire article so as to avoid getting sick to my stomach or ripe and angry. The EPA is creating a legislation that would expand the influence of the Clean Air Act into other sectors in the economy, including small businesses, and homes. The rational is questionable and I would seriously like to hear an argument for this regulation outside of one that ends in "the sky is falling." Benefit of the doubt is always higher ground. If this is true, and it is not suppressing, than you can expect me to roll up my sleeves for the next couple of months and lay some verbal elbow-drop on these irrational eco-dorks.