Maybe there's another pair of choices he ought to consider -- between expending his energy and considerable talent in futile protest of the outcome of the last war and doing what he can to win the next one.
the above, from the link you provided.
re: the protest: The objective of such protest I would say would be:
1. to let the main players in this charade that what was done was wrong. I am not going to get into the legalese of it, but in general terms, it is my belief that rules were "made up" (at best), as the process went along. "we the people" are aware of it and we are telling you that was wrong.
2. the protest on its own may not be productive (other than release pressure out), but it will become effective by a follow up process demanding that new and effective rules are implemented in order to avoid the absurdity we witnessed.
The main point is to let the politicians know that "we the people are the employers of these politician, and they should stop being so arrogant as there may be limits to what they can get away with (or at least so i hope people think).
______
now a more important point. since you are a bureaucrat, i would be interested in learning your opinion as to how the EPA goes about "solving" problems in reference to existing small businesses where given many of the new rules these businessmen face, at times, they are forced to shut-down. as a result, many people lose their livelihoods, or their jobs, (as applicable).
I will illustrate an example: (this, as many others, are typical of small operations)
take a small concrete pumping operation where the owner-operator of say 3 to 4 rigs that go around pumping concrete as it is contracted in the nearby area. at the end of the day, they have to clean up each truck.
in the past they used a steam-high pressure hose to wash down the truck. this included cleaning the engine gearbox segment, which meant that oil residues would be washed down to unprotected storm sewer basins hence polluting the streams (where the storm sewer finally is directed).
the EPA, with a short-term warning demanded that the operator stop this practice or face shutdown. the options were:
1. install an oil-water separator immediately, (cost, at the time, 10 years ago), range anything from $15,000.00 to $30,000.00 (the amount plus the "immediacy" of the demand was impossible for this particular operator to meet).
2. move to a facility that already had such separator already installed
3. move way out of town where either county inspectors were not around, local laws did not cover such practice, (which it does not matter from the legal point of view since EPA are federal mandates --but there is no one to enforce them)
4. stop doing business
his choice was temporarily # 3 and eventually (within 6 months) # 4
like this, there are millions of small businessmen who are NOT criminals, simply have been caught in a reaction that we as a society never paid attention to our environment hence, all the outrageous abuses and mismanagement of this environment which no doubt it needs to be corrected... the question is HOW.
as the operator above, there are millions others such as:
1. auto repair operators
2. paint shop operators (where painting booths are required at a cost of $50,000.00 and up)
3. furniture manufacturers
4. paint strippers
5. anybody handling what is classified as "hazardous waste" materials. and many other lines of businesses.
in addition...
the impact that this laws have had on liability insurance for a potential "clean-up EPA mandated" has been considerable since property owners and even lenders, become liable for deeds performed by, (in many cases), bankrupt operators.
i repeat, i am not against the problem being corrected, i simply ask you, which is the best method to fix this problem where in the past there were no requirements (due mainly to our own ignorance), so there were no "system" in place.
all of a sudden very costly infrastructures are demanded to be placed in service rapidly.
so... my specific question to you is: do you think that the current system of "the big stick" (fines, closures, fear etc. etc) should be used by the EPA, or an alternative way perhaps could achieve the same results, (or even better with greater cooperation), by the EPA ?
or else... what suggestion would you have?
my point is, many times these agencies take an adversarial attitude and could not care less about the effect that the imposition of these new laws will have upon the population. i believe that a different attitude could in the end serve better for everyone.
i remind you that most of these laws did not exist 15 (or is it 20?) years ago. most of the experiences i could relate, are from the time when these laws began to be implemented.
i am also aware that in the case of larger corporations i admit that many of them have NOT acted in good faith, therefore, requiring more aggressive stances by the EPA.
in closing, my intent is not adversarial, but merely to learn what is in your mind in respect to these issues. |
