Who would have thought that the concept of clean air and water would be too costly an expense for business in America? Who would have thought that the so called moderate Romney would think that clean water was a concept that was too expensive?
Below the squiggly thing is the Mitt manifesto for jobs as it stands today. It may be different tomorrow.
As president, Mitt Romney will eliminate the regulations promulgated in
pursuit of the Obama administration’s costly and ineffective anti-carbon agenda.
Romney will also press Congress to reform our environmental laws and to
ensure that they allow for a proper assessment of their costs. Laws that forbid
cost assessment may have had some merit in the era in which they were passed.
But that was a time when the environment was severely contaminated and the
United States enjoyed full employment and low energy prices. Today, such laws
are a costly anachronism and are in urgent need of reform. Romney will seek to
amend the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to ensure that cost is taken properly
into account at every stage in the regulatory process.
In addition, Romney will seek amendments that provide a multi-year lead time
between the date when a new regulation is issued and the date by which companies
must come into compliance. If there are compelling human health reasons to
restrict industrial emissions, regulatory bodies must issue standards that can be
achieved over a reasonable period of time, affording industries fair notice and a
significant window in which to invest in the development and installation of new
technology that would bring their facilities into compliance.
No twisting of those words is necessary. If you need to breathe, or if you need water, then you are an accounting item. A potentially unnecessary cost that needs to be capped.
His "plan" for growth says if there are too many of you who need clean water and air, well don't worry those accounting costs will be capped.
As president, Mitt Romney will impose a regulatory cap that forces agencies to recognize and limit these costs. In the first term of a Romney administration, the rate at which agencies could impose new regulations would be capped at zero. What this means is that if an agency wishes or is required by law to issue a new regulation, it must go through a budget-like process and identify offsetting
cost reductions from the existing regulatory burden. While not a panacea for the
problem of over-regulation, implementation of this conservative principle would
go some distance toward halting the relentless growth of the regulatory state.
As for how the corporations, who are of course people, account for the value of human life - well you need not know how.
While not an Obama-era invention, the Sarbanes-Oxley law passed in the wake of the accounting scandals of the early 2000s should also be modified as part of
any financial reform. Many of its requirements were designed for large companies
but impose onerous burdens when applied to mid-size firms. The result is that
smaller companies are penalized for growing larger, and those attempting to make
the leap are discouraged from seeking out the investment capital with which to
expand. Romney will seek to amend the law to remove unreasonable burdens on
mid-size companies. These companies are a crucial component in the economy’s
job-creation engine, and regulation must not place unnecessary obstacles in their
path to growth.
Just be happy to get sick and don't forget, under Romney, court cases become too much of an accounting issue as well.
Our legal system, with its framework of litigation and liability, serves as
another form of regulation faced by both individuals and businesses. As with
all regulation, this framework can play an important role in strengthening our
economic system if it is designed and operated effectively. If it is not, however, it
imposes serious burdens on economic actors that raise the cost of doing business,
increase uncertainty, and decrease investment. As president, Mitt Romney will
pursue reforms that respect the federal-state balance of power in our court system
while creating a legal environment conducive to economic growth. Preventing
excessive damage awards, limiting class-action lawsuits to those situations where
they are actually warranted, and empowering judges to sanction more effectively
trial lawyers and parties who bring frivolous claims are all steps that could protect
litigants with legitimate grievances while preventing spurious litigation from
inhibiting investment and job creation.