Rumors of massive EPA hirings are ‘comically wrong’


Rumors have been circulating this week that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to hire 230,000 employees to monitor new air standards at a cost of $21 billion to taxpayers.

The only problem is those rumors aren’t true at all – or at least that’s what the EPA told POLITICO.

The Daily Caller reported online yesterday that the EPA is “asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats – at a cost of $21 billion.” The report basis most of its information off of a September 16 court briefing, and it does not quote any specific source.

In that briefing, the EPA said “hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting function would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year.”

So POLITICO called the EPA to find out what was going on. Here is what the agency said:

“Much of what is said or written about EPA these days is entirely inaccurate — but The Daily Caller’s report is comically wrong,” EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan told POLITICO. “At least one job clearly needs to be created: They’re clearly in the market for a fact-checker.”

The 230,000 full-time employees comment was made under a section about the Tailoring Rule, which says the rule should be phased in so the system won’t be taxed. As a result of the Tailoring Rule, the EPA won’t need 230,000 employees, and the agency won’t need a 10 years to approve a Title V permit.

13 Responses

  1. kztoy says:

    @ A guy – Two Thumbs Up. Very accurate and correct analysis of the logic EPA used to adopt the Tailoring Rule. Note that environmentalists (e.g., The Center for Biological Diversity) also sued EPA over the Tailoring Rule arguing that the agency exempts too many big polluters.

    @ strengthof10 – Whining crybaby? The EPA is supposed to use science while undertaking their governmental activities, not act like political hatchet job tacky comedians. Stick to the article please. Don’t stoop to their level.

  2. David says:

    “Tailoring Rule” —- that means that the bureaucrats from the Obama regime get to decide which companies to destroy and which to leave alone. For example, if your CEO has spoken harshly about Obamacare, or if people in your company have supported whe wrong political groups, then the leg breakers from the EPA appear at your door … “nice company you’ve got there, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it”.
    The purpose of “tailoring” is so that the rule can be used as a club against political enemies.

  3. strengthof10 says:

    kztoy, You are just a whining crybaby.

    Wah! wah! wah! wah!

  4. TXSFRED says:

    And a few years later when they have hired 230,000 and Obama has claimed the making of that 230,000 GOVERNMENT jobs they are not hiring ( that no one can be fired from ) who will you believe, Fat Face Linda?

    Goverment jobs are paid for by you and I folk….and should NEVER be counted as jobs. They are barnacles on the ship.

  5. A guy says:

    Let’s be honest and correct here.

    The 230,000 people the EPA’s estimate of the people that it would need if it didn’t issue the tailoring rule. They even admitted not one paragraph later that it was patently absurd. That was their justification for the tailoring rule.

    Now the fact that the tailoring rule is blatantly unconstitutional never really seems to come up in these conversations. The EPA cannot rewrite the plain language of something written by Congress. That’s that. These are hard numbers written into the law that the EPA cannot change. That is where the 230,000 people comes back into play.

    Beyond that, the Clean Air Act, with it’s non-attainment area design is completely unsuited for dealing with a well-mixed gas of global origins. It also has no provision to handle the fact that even with 100% stoppage of American generation, CO2 levels would continue to rise.

    The EPA, with it’s actions, has created a nice no-win scenario that is collapsing around them. Their tailoring rule will not hold up in court. They cannot regulate CO2 via the Clean Air Act without the tailoring rule.

  6. LB says:

    The EPA like Obama LIES!

  7. olddispatcher says:

    The only source of the 230,000 figure seems to be the one pulled out of thin air. The EPA was very clear that the number was not the amount of people they were planning on hiring.

    In fact, the EPA was claiming that if the rules were put into place all at once then that many people would be needed, and the EPA said that was just not workable and was unnecessary.

    A simple reading of the story shows that the EPA is not wanting to hire anywhere near that number of people and therefore it will not do so.

  8. Rhonda says:

    The EPA needs to be abolished, then there will be at least 230,000 jobs available.

  9. Jackalope says:

    So when the EPA itself said it needs 230,000 more people, it didn’t have its own facts straight?

  10. KB says:

    “At least one job clearly needs to be created…”
    Yeah, the person who replaces Lisa Jackson.

  11. olddispatcher says:

    If you are concerned with this issue you really have only two options.

    You can become a tinfoil wearing nut job that follows every rabbit trail out there no matter how looney it sounds,

    OR…. You can find out just how many jobs the EPA is trying to fill.

    So go to and type in EPA in the search box. Leave the ‘where’ box as it is to pick up every job the EPA has open at the moment. Currently they have 41 openings.

    Let us know where they have 50,000 openings at one time, would you?

    Right wing sources sound like nothing more than Groucho Marx crying out: “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

  12. kztoy says:

    The EPA spokesperson is not very professional, stooping to the use of sarcasm like that… Maybe HE could be the Daily Caller fact checker, after his prompt dismissal from EPA of course.

  13. Peeper says:

    You can trust the EPA…con artists!