Washington, D.C., can sometimes be a mystery to those who do not regularly breathe its rarified air. The recent elections are a case in point. Given the shellacking that many of the Washington mavens took last November for advancing such truly controversial ideas like ObamaCare and "cap and trade," one might think they now would be at least moderated, especially since both are credited with historic power shifts in the Congress. Wouldn't it now make sense to ease up on the throttle a little?
Well, apparently not to the White House's appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency. Despite the Senate's 2010 rejection of a deeply-flawed cap-and-trade program that would hamstring America's manufacturers as our economy begins to recover, tireless political appointees are seeking to accomplish by regulation what Congress plainly chose not to do legislatively.
Oftentimes, government regulations can be a good thing. Generally, that occurs through a transparent process of comprehensive cost/benefit analysis where divergent opinions on science, economics and technologies are distilled into a workable consensus. Unfortunately, an unprecedented avalanche of pending and final rule-making on greenhouse emissions is barreling toward unsuspecting Americans, overwhelming the deliberative process.