Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sevfiv

Bush Administration plans even bigger EPA cuts for '08

Recommended Posts

It's about time. The EPA could have its budget tripled and it would still be one of the most wasteful federal agencies in existence. Somehow I think it will survive some budget cutting.

I agree. Why do we need the Republican-created EPA? Corporations should be left to their own devices and not have to concern themselves with environmental regulation. Nobody has ever really been harmed by pollution anyway. Hey, I don't mind a little DDT on my produce, lead in my gas, sludge in my drinking water, or PCBs in my seafood. Why does the EPA have to ban these things??? It's just big liberal government wasting our tax dollars, as usual. With Bush's track record, I'm sure these cuts will be hugely successful in protecting our corporations for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. Why do we need the Republican-created EPA? Corporations should be left to their own devices and not have to concern themselves with environmental regulation. Nobody has ever really been harmed by pollution anyway. Hey, I don't mind a little DDT on my produce, lead in my gas, sludge in my drinking water, or PCBs in my seafood. Why does the EPA have to ban these things??? It's just big liberal government wasting our tax dollars, as usual. With Bush's track record, I'm sure these cuts will be hugely successful in protecting our corporations for years to come.

The EPA has many legitimate purposes. However, they've gotten a bit too big for their britches, IMO. By trimming their budget, they'll have to look more closely at those projects that really yield the most bang for the buck.

Btw, despite numerous attempts, there has never been an independently-conducted peer-reviewed scientific study that has ever successfully linked DDT to any human malady. There has been one seemingly-groundbreaking study that seemed to link DDT with premature births...but there has been plenty of time for it to be duplicated, and there has been absolutely no indication of success in that regard. And even if there had been, the person who conducted that study was still reluctant to rule out the use of DDT. After all, dead birds are dead birds...but tens of millions of human lives lost to malaria among other insect-borne diseases (most of them in Africa, where many western nations threatened economic sanctions on any other nation that refused to ban DDT) are just that. Take your pick. Birds or people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's some more fun information:

Citing budgetary shortfalls, cancellations of online subscriptions will be felt more sharply in some EPA offices and regions than others. For example, one e-mail notes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The EPA has many legitimate purposes. However, they've gotten a bit too big for their britches, IMO. By trimming their budget, they'll have to look more closely at those projects that really yield the most bang for the buck.

I think the goal of the Bush administration is to make it increasingly more difficult for the EPA to perform its job. No rational person can support this administration's disdain for science, whether that person works for a chemical company or an environmental firm. I can understand the perspectives of both sides and the need for solutions that are acceptable to both, but dismantling the EPA won't help anyone.

I don't think this has anything to do with reducing the budget deficit. Today's deficit tally stands at a frightening $8,571,721,847,212, so the $100 million cut does nothing but showcase the blatant disregard this administration has for actually running the government.

There is an interesting article at Salon that looks at some of the effects of these cuts (Brownout at the EPA)

"Adds Dwight Welch, a union official who represents EPA employees, "The closures seem like part of a general trend of hostility towards science by this administration. They don't want to hear the facts on everything from global warming to raising drinking water standards."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the goal of the Bush administration is to make it increasingly more difficult for the EPA to perform its job. No rational person can support this administration's disdain for science, whether that person works for a chemical company or an environmental firm. I can understand the perspectives of both sides and the need for solutions that are acceptable to both, but dismantling the EPA won't help anyone.

Let me ask you something. When was the last time you bought Alaskan king crab? If you can find it, you'll notice that it has gotten really expensive. There's a reason. EPA bureaucrats have made it incredibly difficult to obtain a permit. They've also started spending about $6 million per permit to buy back permits from boat owners. Enough people, including an uncle of mine, have responded to the payout that king crab is now a rarity on the menu.

Much more perplexing, the EPA makes boat owners sign a contract stating that the boats can never under any circumstances be used anywhere in the world for commercial fishing purposes. What's up with that? :wacko:

Now I can't speak for you, but I like king crab. A lot. But I can't afford it because of the EPA. Likewise, many of those perfectly good boats, which could be used in the third world to put food on the table, are sitting idle in ports while others are being dismantled for scrap. So as far as I'm concerned, even bureaucracies founded with good intentions are fallible. The EPA is no exception. Reducing their available resources seems like it might be a good way to force them to evaluate the effectiveness of their investments...on the other hand, I'll grant you that that might be expecting a little too much from an institution that has already proven its irresponsibility in my eyes.

I don't think this has anything to do with reducing the budget deficit. Today's deficit tally stands at a frightening $8,571,721,847,212, so the $100 million cut does nothing

Actually, you've got a good point. $100 million is such a small amount. We should be cutting them back much further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They've also started spending about $6 million per permit to buy back permits from boat owners. Enough people, including an uncle of mine, have responded to the payout that king crab is now a rarity on the menu.
Now I can't speak for you, but I like king crab. A lot. But I can't afford it because of the EPA.

So let me understand. You're uncle received $6 million for his permit, and yet you can't afford to buy a king crab? Tell your uncle to share the wealth!!!

A quick look on "the internets" discovered that the king crab industry peaked around 1980 and then the bottom fell out, possibly due to over-catching or maybe even natural cycles. As a result, regulations were put into place to safeguard the remaining populations of king crab. Today, king crab populations remain steady as a result of the regulations, although they have never recovered to the 1980 peak levels.

My take on this is that I'd prefer the preservation of the king crab, even if it means a more expensive dining experience, rather than the wholesale slaughter and eventual extinction of the species. Way to go EPA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick look on "the internets" discovered that the king crab industry peaked around 1980 and then the bottom fell out, possibly due to over-catching or maybe even natural cycles. As a result, regulations were put into place to safeguard the remaining populations of king crab. Today, king crab populations remain steady as a result of the regulations, although they have never recovered to the 1980 peak levels.

My take on this is that I'd prefer the preservation of the king crab, even if it means a more expensive dining experience, rather than the wholesale slaughter and eventual extinction of the species. Way to go EPA!

Actually, the EPA's post-1980 restrictions on when king crab season started and ended were already plenty strict. There was no shortage of king crab and there was no threat of extinction. The buyout program was a waste. And what's up with the contractural clause preventing the use of those boats for commercial fishing anywhere on the planet? That's just assinine.

Btw, if I can't eat it, king crab may as well be extinct. I could honestly care less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serves us right, who needs the EPA anyway, all they do is impede people from doing things like making an honest living dumping hazardous waste chemicals near downtown Houston......

I'm not saying that the EPA should be done away with, just that they need to reevaluate their priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...