Historical note on the EPA

[Craig234]

I ran across this quote from the first (Republican) administrator of the EPA, and would like to share it as such a solid statement about the EPA in contrast to the corrupt Republican opposition to it today.

"We humans with our big cars and our big factories and our big cities were discharging terrible stuff into the air and water, and it had to be stopped or we would soon make our nest uninhabitable. The public was growing increasingly outraged. Every night on colour television, we saw yellow sludge flowing into blue rivers; every day, as we drove to work, we saw black smudges against the barely visible blue sky. We knew that our indiscriminate use of pesticides and toxic substances was threatening wildlife and public health.

But we didn't do much about it. Until 1970, most regulation of industry was done by the states, which competed so strongly for plants and jobs that regulating companies to protect public health was beyond them.

Environmentally, it was a race to the bottom."

This is such an important point left out of the discussion on 'state's rights'. There is enormous economic pressure on states to get business, and that competition forces them to make concessions they shouldn't.

That's the real reason Republicans talk so much about states' rights - they are against the federal government's effectively regulating, wanting instead the race to the bottom state regulation. And they sell it with cheap shots playing on people's hate of big government.

[KT2000]

1. exactly

state's rights and local control is actually control of the locals.
When a local paper mill closed they wanted to dump their entire plant - dioxin, mercury, and PCB laden plant - into a general purpose landfill behind homes. When the citizens objected, they were threatened with losing their retirement so things calmed down. It was only through the efforts of a few and the EPA ombudsman that they were stopped. This is just one example.

State's rights also means taking control of national parks and forests for exploitation of their resources - mining, logging etc. (The Bundy gang were fighting for this.)

Trump's VP is a solid Koch brothers point man for state's rights.

[Craig234]

2. Very good points

The Hillary campaign should attack the Kochs heavily, and note the Pence connection.

I wonder if the Kochs had any influence on trump's pick, if there was any sort of peacemaking.

[eppur_se_muova]

3. Politics is most subject to "influence" at the local level, that's why R's prefer local regulation.

Beginning in the 80's, R's chose to frame the argument as one of "what size" should government be (they wanted smaller, of course). One simple answer is "big enough to do the job", which in this case means big enough to beat back bullying multinational corps. Local gov't can't, or won't do this, because they get both the carrot and the stick from Big Business. The only thing that can stop Big Business is Big Government -- which is why Big Government is a GOOD THING, despite all the right-wing rhetoric to the contrary.

[Craig234]

4. I think the competition between states is essential

If the federal government decides on policies for a credit card industry for the people, it's one thing. If fifty states compete for the business by offering the most pro-industry rules, they get rules far worse for the people.

Same for environmental regulation.

Same for labor rights.

Same for taxpayer subsidies. And so on.

Companies love to make states race to the bottom for their money.

[Nihil]

5. And that is global business writ small ...

> If fifty states compete for the business by offering the most pro-industry rules, they get rules far worse for the people.
> Same for environmental regulation.
> Same for labor rights.
> Same for taxpayer subsidies. And so on.
> Companies love to make states race to the bottom for their money.

Just change the word "states" to "countries" and it is obvious why we're in the shit that we are.

[Craig234]

6. Agreed. nt