Anecdote on 'Enviro-fascists', the Elderly, and our Budgets
One thing that I come to find as a fear of conservatives when faced with environmental regulation is that those imposing these regulations are in fact 'enviro-fascists'. Let me define this concept from my own subjective opinion: an enviro-fascist is one who seeks to use the decaying environment as a tool with which they seek to control your actions and purchases. It is a 'zealot', one who seeks to enlarge the government, and perhaps, with this enlargement, find their own little pet project for which they will contribute government revenues towards (often a company or organization who has some formal tie to that person). In this respect, I believe that these people's fears are quite logical. Indeed, increased government regulation does need sizable increases in the agencies which would inspect them (such as the EPA). However, my argument is that government should actually get smaller if it was to truly go the 'environmentalist' route.
First off, if our government were to attempt, on a grand scale, to become more energy efficient with the buildings it utilizes, this would lower the energy bills that the government would have to pay. In essence, this would reduce the size of government, as a government is just a large checkbook which pays agencies, organizations, construction companies, and millions of workers for their services. If any of these programs were to be reduced, the spending bill would decrease, hence, a decrease in government.
Next, there are many perverse subsidies which the government currently pays which could be cut and do wonders to protecting the environment (from a policy standpoint- there's no telling what the market would do if it didn't have to protect the environment). For instance, the government subsidizes the use of gasoline (the article above states that the true cost of gasoline is really $7 a gallon). The government pays for oil exploration, protects oil corporations which operate overseas from double taxation, and even puts billions of dollars a year into corn ethanol fuel- a bio-fuel which is actually twice as detrimental to the environment than gasoline. Further, the government subsidizes the release of carbon emissions from our cars by putting billions of dollars into highway construction while doing little to stimulate growth in the mass transit market. Perversity can also be found in the way in which America subsidizes the agricultural industry, favoring larger, more productive farms. Farm production is very vital to America, so our country subsidizes inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, and nitrogen fertilizers, which get trapped in groundwaters, killing off wildlife, and releasing chemicals which cause a block of endocrine receptors called 'the estrogen effect' (which can be linked to increases in male testicular non-descent and prostate cancer). This is all useless, however, as mixed-farming techniques (which are foolishly seen as less productive) often reduce the need for inputs and can utilize organic fertilizers rather than synthetics. Finally, thanks to agriculture subsidies and CAFE standards, SUV manufacturers actually profited more from making their cars less energy efficient, and the government subsidized these heavy machines as if they had been used for farm production. This all changed somewhat when George W. Bush re-wrote CAFE standards some 30 years after they were created (yes, that's one thing you can thank him for).
Thus, as you can see, all of these bills get put on the government and are small parts of what has become our country's spending problem. Thus, if we can spend our money in more responsible and pragmatic ways, it may actually protect the environment, lower costs, and indeed, decrease government. Further, it is important to realize that success in our nation's future depends on three important categories which our nation should invest in: infrastructure, research and development, and education. Infrastructure does in fact harm the environment, when we take into account the ways in which highways subsidize the driver's exorbitant gasoline use. However, we could also invest in mass transit, which could decrease the carbon emissions from our cars. A technological fix would also do wonders to protect our environment. If our government put money into researching ways to make renewable energy sources more efficient, as well as developing electric cars, then our need for foreign oil would be reduced and we could spend less money on the costs of war and the veteran's benefits which come after. Finally, education is a given seeing as I'm a student and don't want to become a debt peon!
Let me finish up with the elderly, or rather, the vast amounts of money our government spends on them. If one added up the costs of medicare, social security, veterans benefits for the elderly, and public worker's retirement benefits, it would undoubtedly nearly equal our nation's revenue for that year. This may have been affordable in the 50's (when our national highways were just coming into fruition and the wealthiest American's were taxed 90% of their income), but now, the baby-boomers are of retirement age and the number of people paying into social security will someday be less than the people receiving the benefits (at which point the program will be insolvent). Thus, many things must be done to save money on these ventures. Unfortunately, the Democrats fiercely stand against the cutting of FDR's social safety net, so compromise is hard to come by. However, if we were to change up social security for the young and give them a choice in the matter, or simply reduce the benefits one receives, then this program could prove to survive past 2037, the date in which it could become insolvent (I read this in a CBO Budget Committee report, please bear with me). Further, if we simply raised the retirement age (the 65 year-old cut-off was used at a time when people were only expected to live to the ripe old age of 64), then this would solve many of these spending issues for both social security and medicare.
Well, that's all. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the government is bloated. And it's hard to find a zealot who didn't make a mistake in judgement somewhere along the line. It's also equally as hard to find a good CEO, but there are good politicians and businessmen out there. Do some research on B-Corporations- these are corporations that spend a little extra money to do things like treating their workers more fairly and reduce their environmental impact. All I'm asking for is justice- it doesn't matter if it's an oil billionaire or an enviro-fascist; if people can pursue the good, the just, in everything they do, then we won't be searching for the policy fix. All we need is love and ethics, and our problems can be solved from individual behavior.
