I agree with Scorse that we would have a higher quality of life if we improved the environment and I agree the environment needs improved. However, I don't agree that more government is the way to accomplish it. Giving government the responsibility to improve the environment is real scary to me. They have not proven themselves successful in the past why would we think they could do it now. Government policies don't necessarily benefit special interests I believe they mostly benefit "friends" of politicians. His thought of making the polluters pay is an fair one but keep in mind that approach has been used, however, it does not always work - case in point is PA's underground/aboveground storage tank law. The responsible party is the landowner, however, it is not always the landowner that caused the spill - but it is the landowner that pays.
I totally agree with his position that if you use "public resources" you should pay market value but again because of the "old boys' network" that will never work. I disagree with letting government control R& D. We have progressed very well with letting private enterprise do the R&D - my concern with government getting involved would be government would eventually take over businesses.
I do agree with doing away with subsidies. Government should not be in the business of subsidizing farms, companies or individuals. I do not think our tax dollars should be spent on helping people farm or not farm their land and it most definitely should d not to to help those who want to live in areas that prone to weather events, time and time again!
I am of the mind that there war way too, too many laws and regulations on the books today that make no sense or create paperwork that in the end improves no one or nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment