Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Jobs vs. our environment:


This strange route to get more jobs in Pennsylvania by streamlining (gutting) their environmental staff and regulations is more bad ideology over science.  Yes, we need jobs.  But, this proposal in Pennsylvania for “cuts in environmental protection and permitting as one way to save money” is not the rational way to create more jobs. 

The right way should be to create more jobs by increasing our environmental protection and monitoring all that is going on.  We could create a zillion new jobs by removing all protecting agencies—this is not rocket science. 

We could remove all police and let everyone do everything.  We could even remove governors and all state representative and let corporations and anyone really just go hog wild. 

If your goal is to only create jobs and nothing else; let our environment warm up and get polluted; that’s not hard to do. 

What’s hard is to not let a political party with a maniacal agenda and corporations (who only care about giving their shareholders return on their investments) to run free over our ability to have a democracy and a healthy environment.  

Why do we let these people into our government who are not acting in our best interest? 

Trust me, no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig it’s still a pig: ““Regulatory Reform: Friction-free processes for government interaction with job creators are critical to maintain economic momentum and competitiveness...”  Read on:

PA Environment Gets the Axe – Environmental Permitting To Be Streamlined - ProPublica "A budget proposal [1] released today by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett emphasizes jobs creation and looks to cuts in environmental protection and permitting as one way to save money. It will take some time to wade through the 1,184-page document—we’ll post a more complete story tomorrow. But a quick glance shows that the Department of Environmental Protection will face reduced funding across the board, including in its water safety and water treatment programs. " (March 8, 2011) ProPublica

No comments: