Healthy workers are 83 percent more likely to report health problems if they join the ranks of the unemployed, according to a study by Dr. Kate Strully, an assistant professor at the State University of New York at Albany.  ... Some of the major reasons that job loss is "getting under the skin and causing disease," Strully said, are the loss of a main income source and employer-sponsored health insurance -- and earnings reductions that can last 15 to 20 years even if the worker is hired again.

...

The stress associated with losing a job can affect immune functions, the ability to fight infection, heightened inflammatory responses associated with cardiovascular disease, and slowed metabolism and associated risks like diabetes, Strully said.  "As we all know, it's much harder to take good care of your self when you're stressed out. It's much harder to get to the gym, eat a good diet and so forth," she said.

But it's not just poor health, a study of workers laid off in Pennsylvania during the 1980s recession suggested.

Men, on average, can lose 1.5 years of life along with losing a job, according to the study by Dr. Till von Wachter, associate professor of economics at Columbia University,

"Even 15 to 20 years after a job loss, the mortality rate of job losers is still elevated relative to a group of people who didn't lose their job," he said."

And there are more job losses to be had, along with more of the same effect that we have had to endure with 8 years of a 'green' governor looking to mitigate our daily dose of mercury and CO2.  It was Governor Granholm who put the brakes on the plant in Rogers City citing health reasons among others.

It came at a cost of hundreds of high paying jobs immediately, and more that are too often forgotten when calculating  such things;  like manufacturing jobs.

What most manufacturers understand, is that higher utility costs are a factor that can take away from other expenses such as workforce.  If price cannot be proportionately adjusted for increases in production expense, the usual target must be the worker.  The parts and pieces that are a part of any produced wealth typically have fixed costs, thus additional expense through balance takes away from the employee slice of the pie.

And manufacturing is what Michigan has always been about.

No Utopian vision of cool cities and green 'great societies' where we are all fed like pigs with a trough, can undermine the fact that Michigan's secret to success has always been its ability to craft, create, or build, and its secret to recovery will be the same.  A higher cost to manufacturers translates directly into either higher cost of goods, a few less people on the line, or even more devastating a loss of a company altogether.  According to a September SMU study, energy could be particularly hurtful to Upper Michigan's core industry, paper.

"For each manufacturing job lost, many other dependent jobs will also exit the economy. One in eight private sector jobs rely upon our manufacturing base. For energy intensive manufacturing industries, the relationship is even higher. For example, models show each job lost in iron and steel, 12.3 jobs are lost elsewhere, pulp and paper, 9.7 jobs and refining, 36.3 jobs"

Oh, and costs WILL be higher.  Even directly to the consumers in the UP by the actions of this administration's EPA, the cost of electricity will likely increase by 4 cents per KWH.  A shutdown of this particular plant in Marquette will require the building of a transmission system from Wausau, WI at a cost of a Billion bananas.

Typically, those costs are passed along to buyers of electricity, ya know?

When considering the cause and effect of such overreaching regulatory efforts on Michigan's working class, one might consider such factors to be important. If overall health concerns are truly paramount, then the cause and effect might matter to a discerning leader.  If  economic health concern is a part of the equation then any leader who feigns ignorance of such effect is derelict in his or her service representing us.

And therein lies the problem.

With regard to the EPA, it has no power but for the willingness of the congress to give carte blanche to this insidious job killer and a checkbook with which to operate.  The bastard child of a progressive corruptocrat in the first degree, the EPA still requires funding and authorization by congress to exist.  Another Michigander also recognizes this and addresses the unaccountability by regulators with a letter to Congressman Thadeus McCotter's office man recently.  His letter suggests a return to the responsibility Congress alone has in such matters:

"Michael,
I receive your emails extolling the efforts of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter to bring government spending and spread back to a more reasonable and sustainable level.  There are all manner of schemes and strategies that are built upon a philosophy of limited government, but when it comes right down to it, government has its own inexorable momentum that all of the fine words and phrases uttered against it are simply shed like water off the proverbial duck's back.

I'd like to see one simple change implemented in the way government operates: departments and agencies can enforce laws and regulations, investigate those who are suspected of actions in violation of those laws and regulations and recommend prosecution by the justice department or appropriate state attorney general, and propose new regulations to congress for specific and explicit legislation to enact those regulations... but departments and agencies cannot propose and implement regulations, nor declare broader interpretation of existing laws and regulations, under the aegis of a broader, less specific legislation.  Neither should such agencies be allowed to prosecute or directly fine those individuals or organizations they believe to be in violation of federal regulations.

Stripping agencies of their ability to write and implement regulations without the specific and explicit vote and approval of Congress would drastically reduce their ability to affect the free market on the basis of special interests such as frequently done by the EPA.  Forcing departments and agencies to receive the specific and explicit approval of Congress for new regulations or broader interpretation of existing regulations would prevent "backdoor" actions that are against the wishes of Congress which they are presently able to do by proposing a regulation, asking for comments which are reviewed only by the agency or department, and then implementing the new regulation after going through the motions of having a "public review."  Furthermore, eliminating departmental or agency power to prosecute or fine would eliminate or greatly reduce the "coercion" aspect of such departments and agencies and return prosecution and punishment to the court system where it belongs.

It is time to return to Congress the sole right and responsibility for enacting laws [and related regulations] that have material and strategic impact on the United States and its economy.  It is time to return to the judicial system the sole right and responsibility for prosecuting and punishing offenders.  The fiat control of the American economy by federal departments and agencies has created an onerous layer of bureaucratic weight that is crushing this country.  Let's end it!

Sincerely,
Bruce Hall

It couldn't be any more clear.

Punitive, unaccountable, and faceless bureaucracy is the end of our country's ability to operate.  The EPA is at the top of that executive heap with its disregard for our way of life, and the ways in which we create wealth in this country.  A disregard fully exacerbated by the ignorance of same in the current administration.   Ignorance all too often demonstrated by for-our-own-good administrators in Washington. The very possibility that there can be Richard Nixons, Jimmy Carters, and Barack Obamas occasionally prestidigitating to our nation's top office should demand the end to these autonomous agencies of enmity.

Demand an end to the EPA's stranglehold on our economy, on Michigan's economy.

Tell congress to do its job!