|
"Extra Phony @ssholes"...Yep, that about sums it up, Rob...IIRC, the EPA was specifically FORBIDDEN by Congress to justify any of their demands by even the most rudimentary cost/benefit analysis...In other words, if an EPA bureaucrat "felt" some regulation was needed, all he/she/it had to do was simply propose it, & thy will be done. Granted, a great deal of their work-at least in the beginning-was SORELY needed, but like any other bureaucracy, they have grown way too powerful, some of their demands are counterproductive, & the amount of money spent doesn't justify the meager results achieved. Again, though, if you have the temerity to QUESTION their agenda, their supporters run a picture of a cute little girl, resplendent in curls, pinafore & petticoat, playing next to a babbling brook, w/Bambi demurely stepping down to get a drink, birds tweeting joyously in the background, & you are accused of wanting to stop THAT...And go back to 1960s Cleveland, when Lake Erie caught on fire...
The patronage system is a marvelous thing.
I'm with you, Sandy. It really frosts my ass when a Government agency uses out tax revenues to advertise their agenda. I really object to having to pay for them in the first place, much less their propaganda.
But my all time, make you want to cuss, Gubbmitt advertising campaigns, were the one's that the IRS ran back in the '70's or 80's. Remember those, some fat guy in a little sporty car, popping off with something like, "Take every legal deduction, it's your money."
I thought to myself,"Why does the IRS need to advertise? Not like you can go to the IRS across the street, or just refuse to do business with them in the first place".
I know, they were just attempting to paint a smiley face or their sorry asses...but I object to have to pay for it.
Chas
|