Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Umnnhhh....Jim: "Cutting Costs" Means "Cutting Costs"

I can't think of two issues on which I disagree with Jim Sensenbrenner, so this is either the first or the second.

...Reigniting our economy will require more than reducing spending. While spending reductions are critical, the new Republican majority must also ensure that authorized funds are spent effectively and that new regulations are not overly burdensome.

In the Select Committee’s minority, we opposed this spending here and abroad. Now that Republicans have retaken the House, the Select Committee is more qualified than any other Congressional institution to ensure the administration doesn’t bend to unrealistic international demands — and that the EPA doesn’t attempt to do what Congress wouldn’t.

The complexity of EPA regulations and international climate negotiations warrants a committee dedicated to ensuring that our environmental policies have the balance that the EPA has proven unable to find. Beyond climate change regulations, the reauthorized Select Committee would perform oversight of Boiler MACT, fracking, coal ash regulations and countless other EPA efforts.

Far from being a cost, I believe that by ensuring that environmental concerns are appropriately balanced against economic considerations, the Select Committee will save the country billions of dollars and countless jobs. With the threat of one-sided EPA regulations quelled, we could work with Democrats in Congress and with the White House to further technological developments in the energy sector and broaden our energy portfolio without risking economic ruin.


What the Congressman argues (albeit with great conviction and no small amount of evidence) is that "We should spend money to save money."

And what the Congressman does NOT mention is this: the membership of the Select Committee did not disappear from the face of the Earth in the election. They're still around--by and large. Their knowledge did not go into the memory hole.

Find a way to accomplish the objective with LESS SPENDING, Jim.

No comments: