Environmental regulations always hurt economy Re: “EPA regulators to kill jobs amid recession,” June 18
Diana Furtchgott-Roth explains why new Environmental Protection Agency regulations will cause unemployment. She then concludes that “We should put new environmental regulations on hold until unemployment goes down.”
However, the objections she raises are not only applicable during a recession. Environmental regulations will have a negative effect on the economy and lives of Americans regardless of when they are imposed.
EPA regulators illustrate what the Nobel Prize-winning Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek called the “Fatal Conceit.” They seem to believe they have sufficient knowledge to substitute their plan for all the plans of millions and millions of individual Americans who act on the market.
However, there is no scientific way for regulators to determine the optimal trade-off between the amount of carbon dioxide or ozone in the air and economic production. To give regulators this power at any time is naivete at its worst.
R. Ben Sperry
=”text-align:>
Asking wrong question about young sailor Re: “Rescued sailing girl needs responsibility lesson,” June 17
“Susan Estrich, have you stopped beating your children when you come home drunk every night?” is the kind of sentence crafted so that the subject is harmed, no matter what the answer. But such is the technique Estrich herself employed.
It was one thing to raise the question of responsibility and public cost when Abby Sunderland’s around-the-world sailing attempt ended with a rescue. And it’s valid to discuss whether the Sunderlands should be held accountable for the public cost.
It’s entirely different to use a statement crafted to malign them, especially when it dubiously suggests that parents are committing ritual sacrifice of their own offspring when they follow their religious beliefs while making medical decisions for their children.
Estrich should have asked if there was a point at which a parent’s First Amendment religious rights are trumped by another’s medical opinion, and whether the government can intervene when it believes it knows better. And, if so, when?
Laszlo Pentek
=”text-align:>
Congressman had no right to grab camera-wielding questioners Re: “Congressman not only the only one misbehaving in sidewalk encounter,” June 16
I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no excuse for a congressman to grab and squeeze a questioner off the street. It’s crazy that Meghan Cox Gurdon would defend it.
These students were being as polite as can be. One said, “Hi, congressman” and then asked Rep. Bob Etheridge, D-N.C.: “Do you fully support the Obama agenda”? Is there something wrong with that? It’s a valid question, and the public has the right to know the answer.
I don’t care if someone shouted obscenities at him or said how much they hate the job he’s doing. It’s understandable if he says something stupid back, but to assault a couple of nobodies on the street is nuts. There is simply no excuse.
Brian Miller
=”text-align:>
