Tobacco Documents Online

Excessive Regulation Recently, President Clinton charged Vice President Gore tb investigate ways too eliminate waste and abuse in the government. The adrninistration's goal is "to make the entire Federal Government both less expensive and more effi+cientl and to change! the culture of our national bureaucracy away froml complacency andi entitlement toward initiative and empowermem. "' Though no one is sure exactly what programs and departments will be affected, none will be protected from scrutiny. Clinton has already moved in the proper direction by consolidating or eliminating several departments and councils under his control'and' by mandating a cutback in personnel in his executive offices. However, more than just unnecessary, offices and people must be eliminated. If the administrationi wants to eliminate waste andl abuse in government, perhaps it should examine the cumbersome federal regulatory systemi which raises the cost of doing business, increases prices, limits job creation and forces loca!1 gpvernments to cut services and raise taxes. ini order to comply with regulation. We find this problem throughout the entire regulatory system, but especially in the area of'environmental administration. While no one disputes that environmental regulati.on is necessary to limit our exposure to hazardous materials, such regulation seems to~ have gQtten ou ' of control. The costs of regulations are borne most significantly by local governments, businesses and, you, the consumer and taxpayer. Though local governments and businesses are the: most regulated, the costs are passedi on tio the consumer and taxpayer in the form of higher prices and taxes: A July 6, 1992 Forbes article entitled "You Can't Get There From Here" estimated'! that overalll each American -- child,, adult and senior citizen alike -- ends up paying some $450 more in higher taxes and prices because of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. That means that a family of four will pay $1,800 more ai year. Couldn't you find a better use for that money? How much do EPA regu!latiions actually cost overall? ' Welll, it is estimatedl that it costs over $115 bi!llion, a year for Americans to comply with EPA regulations. Local governments are hard hit, according to, Frank Shafroth of the National League of Cities, because local resources only cover $1 of every $10' of regulations mandated by the EPA. And, there are high costs to, businesses because they must comply with contradicting, ill-conceived4 an4 unnecessary regulation. And what about the EPA itself7 The EPA has a staff of 18,0001 and an operating budget of $4.51 billlion. The staff'accounts for one seventh of the federal regulatory staff and its budget' for one third of the spending of the federal regulatory systern..

1 2- These regulations and their administration cost billions of dollars. Should we be spending our money this way?' Would' it not be better to~ invest some of these billions in education programs,, worker t'raining, programs, and health care programs? There is also the question of the basis of these EPA regulations. There are several' reasons for regulating hazards to our health. However, when regulations are based on faulty science they cost us more than the perceived! health benefits they bring. Many examples can be culled from EPA f les, , but the one that is currently affecting, our lives both at home! and in the work place is indoor air quality. Indoor air quality (IAQ) has become an important issue as we are evaluating it~ in our businesses& and our homes. We are studying ways to improve IAQ,, so: that we can impr.ove : our productivity and our health and eliminate a score of illnesses caused by unhealthy indoor environments. Its most recent report about IAQ concerned environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The EPA report concluded that ETS poses a health risk to non- smokers. However, of the 30 studies reviewed by the EPA, 24 showed no statistically significant eonelation between ETS andi cancer and the remaining 6 showed only a small correlation., Researchers were unable to rulir out other factors that might cause cancer such as outdoor air pollution. Scientists such as Dr. Gary Huber, a specialist'~ on respiratory diseases from the University of Texas Health Center, dispute the EPA findings. He said, "No matter how you adjust the data,, the risk relationship for ETS and~ lung, cancer, remains very weak."' . Nevertheless, the EPA would have us believe that ft is necessary to regulate ETS. BU why not have us regulate overall IAQ? Why not have us improve ventilation systems and reduce our exposure to hazardouschemiicals?~ Why, not let businesses and local governments establish their own standards and determine how money should be spent oni IAQ?' Whyimposeunnecessary regulatory costs on, businesses, local governments and ourselves? It is time to adhere to our nation's priorities of saving, money, investing in our future and eliminating waste and abuse. We should free our businesses and local governments to create jobs, stimulate the economy and provide us with neededl services, and not tie t'heir hands with costly regulations basedl upon questionable scientific studies and which, in turn place unnecessary price andd tax burdens oni us.