EPA May Add Almost a Quarter of a Million New Bureaucrats
The Nazis had the Gestapo. The Soviets had the KGB. Our hardening soft tyranny has the innocuous-sounding Environmental Protection Agency, which has been granted authority by the Supreme Court to regulate literally every aspect of our existence. It is growing and consolidating its power at a terrifying pace:
We’ve always said the EPA’s extra-legal attempt to rewrite the 1970 Clean Air Act to twist it into a greenhouse gas law — cap-and-trade by other means — would be a disaster. Up to now, EPA tried to claim it would only apply permitting requirements to large industrial facilities. Now it is finally telling the truth — that applying the Clean Air Act as written will force permitting for even small commercial facilities, schools, hospitals, churches, restaurants that use natural gas as a cooking fuel, and even larger single family homes.
In a court filing last week, EPA quantified the vast new army of federal bureaucrats it will need to process millions of new permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting process. A shocking 230,000 new EPA bureaucrats at a cost of $21 billion — more than tripling the EPA’s total budget. In the filing EPA says it will reach these levels by April 30, 2016.
Inevitably, as our freedom goes up in smoke, so to do our prospects for employment:
Based on the historical relationship between the number of federal regulators and private sector employment recently quantified by the Phoenix Center the addition of 230,000 federal bureaucrats would destroy 22.5 million private sector jobs.
But on the bright side, Austrian gun-maker Glock can expect plenty of business.
Mind you don’t wind up on the EPA’s Wanted List.
On a tip from Ghost of FA Hayek. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
Welcome to the 6th annual 20 hottest conservative new media list Men of 2014 edition. I gave the judges one rule: Set personality aside and pick the men who you...Read More
The progressive ruling class has taken an alarming interest in what we eat. How will they impose a diet suitable
A little follow-up on Jan Morgan, who for sensible reasons (see here and here) has banned Muslims from her business
It is not news to hear that we are in an environment of bias which is fueled by our mainstream