OK, commenter “mer” had me dead to rights: Skip, as a young boy, did you run around with sticks poking bears and hornet’s nests? 😉
My response was: No, mer, I didn’t – but I have found out, as an adult, that it is good, clean (and cheap!) fun!
So, I went back and did it again at TreeHugger. It seems that even at that bastion of Environmentalism (Leftist branch), there is talk about the Obamacare oral arguments:
If the Supreme Court Throws Out Health Care Law, Might Environmental Protections be Next?
The jist of the post is that they are following in line with Obama’s reasoning: The Supremes should not throw out a democratically passed piece of legislation. No positive mention of the Constitution as a limiting document – merely kvetching that other liberal programs, especially the EPA, would be at risk. That would be, except for a couple of conservative outlier commenters like yours truly. I responded to this comment which, in turn, was in response to an earlier one (emphasis mine):
” If you do not carry health insurance, you are not a threat to others. “
Have you ever heard of people passing germs and thus sickness? Yes, lack of healthcare is a threat to others.
I really shook my head at this – I’d hate to be this guy, walking around, thinking everyone around me could do me harm with a simple cough or sneeze! THIS is the argument of choice as to why Obamacare is constitutional and should not be thrown out – “Daddy, she gave me germs!”:
“…lack of healthcare is a threat to others…“
The purpose of Government is NOT to protect you against all the risks of being alive. Including ordinary germs. And no stretch of “the general welfare” clause can make that true.
And then I went more philosophical on what seemed to be a belief that that unless there was an EPA, we’d all be up to our armpits in pollution and lungs black as sin:
Agreed. With all bureaucracies (private AND public), the normal activity is to continue to seek out and extend its reach. The EPA is no different in this regard. However, it is now making national decisions that ought to be the result of Legislation done by elected and accountable legislators instead of an unelected and unaccountable band of bureaucrats.
Unless you are a Progressive – then it is a feature vs a bug, as it advances the regressive motion back from being a democratically oriented Republic to the “Administrative State” (just like monarchies used to be).
and of course, someone of the Enviro-wacko persuasion (and complementary, a total belief that only the Feds can do things right):
“…lets throw out the EPA and watch our rivers cvatch [sic] on fire”
Really? Are you serious? Are you serious? Heh – just throwing in a little Pelosi there for what is not a very serious answer. I tried to be more gentle:
When ordinary folk read stuff like they, they scoff. I consider myself a Conservative and contrary to what might be thought round these parts, I grew up during the times when rivers did catch fire. NO one is calling to return to that, so stop that nonsense.
I also observe that the air, water, and land have become (even using the EPA’s own data) far cleaner than they were back then – that’s what rich nations with healthy economies can do (and poor countries with small economies can’t do as there is no “spare capital” with which to accomplish those goals). No one would put up with those conditions anymore.
But the EPA is now well within the bounds of that stage where regulating for relatively small increments is getting increasingly costly and are now hitting the Law of Diminishing Returns which means any improvement is extremely expensive. Life has to be a set of cost / benefits but the EPA seems to ignore their diktats have real life and negative consequences.
I also believe that it is not necessary to have the EPA around – each state has its own version of it and could easily take care of its own. It never ceases to amaze me that people automatically believe that ONLY the Federal Govt should be in charge of so much – it shreds the idea of Federalism and the philosophy of 50 labs of democracy. I agree with an earlier commenter – the EPA has outlived its usefulness and instead, has become an impediment by overstepping its authorizing law. For instance, it is effectively trying to control our national energy policy simply by regulating it – instead of it being done democratically by the House, Senate, and President agreeing on that [issue] when it crosses state lines (yeah, have to through in a little 10th Amendment there).
It goes without saying that having an “EPA” closer to the voters makes it more accountable to those it regulates – and the legislators that will regulate it. We’ve seen NH Department of Environmental Services get the attention of the NH House and Senate as Granite Staters have complained about certain actions – think that the EPA at the Federal level would be as responsive (er, the correct answer is no).
