Voting For Our Future

Voting For Our Future

By Lisa Rutherford

Voting can be challenging. Many are concerned about those in power who want to control our lives and futures through regulations. For many, social restrictions are good, but business restrictions bad. I am not for over-regulation and actually believe that some current regulations need to be reviewed and perhaps eliminated. But I am also not for a free-for-all, and that is what I sense many would like when it comes to how they conduct business, hire employees, treat employees, pay employees, are taxed, etc. For some, any regulation seems to be a bad regulation. I was raised in a very conservative Republican home but somehow the idea that regulations are bad was never embedded in my psyche.

With the election underway weighing the pros and cons of candidates based on what regulatory actions those candidates will bring with them seems reasonable, but it’s important to remember that there are many good reasons for the regulations that we currently have—regulations that some feel stifle growth. But look at how the U.S. economy (pandemic and Great Recession excluded) has grown and prospered in spite of the regulations although with lower GDP than some desire. As the Harvard Business Review notes, “…while regulatory reform could provide a big boost if it is done right, indiscriminate deregulation could do more harm than good.”  So voters would do well to be skeptical of someone who wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Most of the regulations we have are the result of past events that have opened our eyes to inequities and dangers that were affecting Americans’ lives. Cancer-causing pesticides, polluted rivers, and air, dangerous child labor practices, auto safety features, and more opened people’s eyes to the fact that businesses should not be allowed to do whatever it wants when those practices harm humans and the environment upon which we depend.

The no-regulation faction argues that these regulations harm their businesses and our economy. Those on the right equate environmental regulations with economic decline and job losses even as the economy improves and profits sore – to wit the stock market for example. Donald Trump has worked to cut the public out of the environmental process by undermining our environmental laws including NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) that allows public participation in environmental reviews. He wants to undo the Environmental Protection Agency saying it’s “a disgrace.” It’s a disgrace to protect people? It’s true that EPA regulations slow the process for many businesses, but isn’t protecting the environment on which we and our children depend worth a little time and energy to get it right?

Research on the costs and benefits of environmental regulations has revealed that economic warnings are greatly inflated while health benefits increase. The health benefits of regulations were supported by an EPA report that looked at the results of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020.  The report revealed that “central benefits estimate exceeds costs by a factor of more than 30 to one.” The report asserted that the “Clean Air Act alone will prevent over 230,000 premature deaths in 2020, and return more than $30 in benefits for every dollar spent on costs.” The study was done prior to the pandemic.

But even this month, as we deal with this pandemic, the EPA has reapproved dozens of toxic pesticides known to cause serious harm to humans and the environment.  Just as we are trying to save lives from COVID, the EPA under this administration is doing more to cause harm.  What will this ultimately cost Americans?

Discussions regarding climate change and associated costs of emission regulations should consider that actual costs of dealing with acid rain in the past were far lower than costs estimated by Congress as they were debating the issue. In this regard, however, it’s important to note that some regulations do have unintended consequences. For instance, efforts to reduce CO2 emissions through CAFE standards with minimum gas mileage for new cars raised the price of cars while lowering the cost of driving resulting in more driving, more congested roads, and more accidents.

Research has shown that the warnings of job destruction and economic decline due to regulation are often greatly exaggerated and that there is “little or no aggregate net effect of regulation on jobs” but that politicians will continue to assert there is even when there’s little to back that up.

Take our area, for example. Have regulations hampered Washington County’s growth? For several decades this area has grown at what some consider a “cancerous” rate. What would the effects have been had regulations not been in place? How much crazier might it be here? Those who disdain the Red Cliffs—the “tortoise reserve” —and the regulations that led to its creation should remember that growth in the county has occurred because of Red Cliffs bringing jobs and wages with it. Even now, however, we see those who want a Northern Corridor through the protected Red Cliffs National Conserve Area/Reserve pushed through as quickly as possible without adequate review. Another UDOT project that would go through public land, the proposed “Long Valley Road extension” that would connect the existing Long Valley Road with a planned interchange on the Southern Parkway, is being shortchanged in the environmental process by not requiring that a reasonable range of alternatives be required for evaluation. Building permits are up this year in spite of the pandemic and yet we must rush these processes when our public lands and the species they are meant to protect will be harmed, as is acknowledged in the Environmental Assessment for this project?

Don’t buy the political rhetoric that all regulations are the bane of our existence. Regulations have done many good things for us and will continue to do so.

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor