It seems obvious that if we are going to revive the economy, we are going to have to reevaluate how we regulate it. We are going to have to go through every line in the Federal Register and determine whether each regulation and mandate makes sense based upon a realistic cost/benefit analysis. We need to have a public discussion and be honest with ourselves whn weighing the economic reward against the economic penalties of the regulations that are on the books now and any that are proposejd for the future. But, as in all things, the discussion must be based on evidence and fact and not on emotion. For example, just because someone says that a proposed law is “good” for the environment, we need to ask whether this is really so. And if so, what is the cost in human terms if that regulation is enacted. Might we not be throwing the baby away with the bathwater?
A classic example of this is the Endangered Species Act. As presented to the American people, this was a law that was supposed to save our warm and cuddlly friends in the animal kingdom. In the public relations campaign to get the act passed by Congress, the proponents claimed that the new law was necessary in order to save our national symbol the bald eagle. With the media-Matrix working overdrive on environmentalist propaganda, opponents who argued that the law was much too broad in scope were easily portrayed as the kind of cretins who would happily join their buddies in evil big business and dance on the grave of the last extinct bald eagle . Naturally, opposition melted and the law was enacted.
In terms of preventing the extinction of our national symbol, the Endangered Species act has been a rousing success. The bald eagle has been saved, at least until Obama gets all the bird killing windmills he lusts after:
I mean, what’s the extinction of the golden eagle compared to a few extra gigawatts of “clean” energy that might somehow save the planet, right? But, that’s a different story for another chapter.