asterism
Congress != Progress
Okay, so we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this one. There is no way in hell I would trust the local politicians in MI to regulate or oversee the environment there. THat was pretty much the situation in the 50's, 60's and into the 70's. What regulation and oversight occured? None. It wasn't until some danm Liberals from other states, as well as Canada made a huge fuss that the damage by the Big Three was ever challenged. By then, the joke was that you could walk across Lake Erie without ever getting wet. Just about every form of life in the Rouge River was dead. And for thirty years, there was no one from the state to report it to the Fed. When they finally did, it was determined that the state legislature had eliminated all that nasty, liberal, unnecessary government regulation to such a point, that none of the auto manufacturers was found guilty of committing a single crime.
And trust Texas politicians to set the standards, regulations for say Gulf rig valves for example? To never look the other way? Not while I have a vote on it.
Your example is good and I've never been a big fan of Feinstein anyway. So although I'm sure there are lots of examples like the one you made, there are also ones like mine.
The other thing is that I've always been a proponent of nuke power. I have my concerns and they've increased lately but still on the pro-side. However, if standards were left to states? Get rid of the NRC? Would never go for that either. Scary juju!
Those are fine examples of what can and should be avoided. I agree with you on nuclear power and that is a case where there is huge potential danger and a huge potential benefit. I don't think it's an either/or comparison of "get rid of the NRC" or not, and the functions served by the NRC at a federal level do not in itself mandate the rest of the EPA waste (not valid functions that the EPA serves, the bureaucratic waste part of it).
So much of the debate about the size and scope of the federal government usually arises out of mischaracterization and inflamed rhetoric. One side assumes that since those in favor of getting rid of the EPA as a huge bureaucracy, that automatically means they want to set the Cuyahoga River on fire again. Then the other side says that since they don't want that to be possible anymore that means they want to outlaw any and all manufacturing. That said, there are extremes who want exactly that.
You and I are neither in this discussion, and most people are actually reasonable.
Going back to your original stated intent of this thread, the TP generally agrees that the size, influence, and procedures of the government has gone too far. Of course they look extreme when the debate is framed from a position that automatically assumes that government size MUST increase, that the government budget MUST increase, that regulations and micromanagement MUST increase, and that anyone who wants to shrink it at all are simply advocating anarchy.
The reality is that there is a way to do this stuff effectively and nobody gets everything they want.