Bush Budget cuts EPA funding.....WHY?

[jumper03 0]

Quote

What Ron said: a 5% budget cut does not correlate to 5% more pollution.

And I agree with you completely, hence my comments.

Quote

The EPA will cut some fat somewhere, and I trust that they will do it in a way that doesn't affect air and water quality.

emphasis mine - and there is where we disagree.

Quote

No big deal!

and yes it is. You're messing with MY air, your childrens air, everyone's air.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[billvon 3,119]

> 5% budget cut does not equal a 5% increase in pollutants.

Correct. It is much worse than that. Pollution sources are growing geometrically. Old sources are expanding AND new sources (ever heard of MTBE?) are coming on-line. If all you did was to linearly increase funding, you MIGHT be able to do a good job against this geometric increase. Cutting funding and expecting nothing bad to happen is like cutting hospital funding to a city that is exploding in population and expecting everything to be OK.

Want to be able to cut EPA funding by 5%? Stop with all the EPA exemptions, loopholes and new source review nonsense. Their job will get easier, and you could do a one-time cut of 5%. (Of course, you'll still have to deal with the increase in pollution eventually.) Since Bush has done the opposite (i.e. ADDED loopholes) the 5% cut WILL decrease their effectiveness and result in much heavier pollution - far more than 5%.

[jumper03 0]

Another thing I'm finding astonishing is that people trust the government with their air but not their guns...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You're messing with MY air, your childrens air, everyone's air.

Cuts have to be made somewhere. No matter what gets cut, it's "messing with" someone's sacred cow. Using this philosophy of yours, nothing should be cut...

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Quote

You're messing with MY air, your childrens air, everyone's air.

Cuts have to be made somewhere. No matter what gets cut, it's "messing with" someone's sacred cow. Using this philosophy of yours, nothing should be cut...

biology is biology and everyone HAS to breathe. We screw up the air and all the other arguments are moot because we won't be here to argue.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[rehmwa 2]

This whole argument is a moot point until we know specifically which departments or programs are going to be cut. Until then it's just a big emotional waste.

Anyone have that detail? Does the EPA?

But I do agree with jumper03 in that I don't necessarily trust any gov agency to cut funding based in a way that benefits the tax payers. But I consider that a reason to further take their money away, not just enrich them enough to hope that some small portion manages to make it to a real and good program.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Anyone have that detail? Does the EPA?

The EPA's FY06 Budget. Appendix D has a FY05 to FY06 Budget to Budget Comparison...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Cuts have to be made somewhere. No matter what gets cut, it's "messing with" someone's sacred cow. Using this philosophy of yours, nothing should be cut...

biology is biology and everyone HAS to breathe. We screw up the air and all the other arguments are moot because we won't be here to argue.

I don't agree with this "Chicken Little" argument that a 5% budget cut will make the sky fall. You've failed to provide any details to support your assertion. So far, all I've seen is just fear-mongering. It's time for you to do some homework and post the specifics.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> 5% budget cut does not equal a 5% increase in pollutants.

Correct. It is much worse than that. Pollution sources are growing geometrically.

The primary source of air pollution is from cars. No change in spending at the EPA will improve this, only people choosing more energy efficient cars, or Congress choosing to make them. Reduced oil consumption would be another reason to do so.

[billvon 3,119]

> No matter what gets cut, it's "messing with" someone's sacred cow.
> Using this philosophy of yours, nothing should be cut...

Reducing Wal-Mart funding might affect Wal-Mart employees. Reducing the EPA's effectiveness will hurt everyone who breathes air and drinks water. (which, last time I checked, comprised 99.9% of US citizens.)

[billvon 3,119]

>The primary source of air pollution is from cars. No change in
> spending at the EPA will improve this . . .

Are you serious?

Check out what LA's air was like in the 70's and what it's like today. Even though more people own cars than ever before, and even though more people choose SUV's/trucks than ever before, the air is between 40% and 90% cleaner. Why? Because the EPA and CARB passed (and enforced) regulations. We gave them the money to clean up the air and it worked. We still have a ways to go, of course, but we're getting there.

And to give Bush credit where credit is due, he did sign the diesel emissions reduction act, which will significantly reduce diesel engine pollution by 2007 (as long as we enforce the act, of course.)

>only people choosing more energy efficient cars . . .

Don't confuse cleanliness with efficiency. A Ford Excursion burns a lot of gas, is grossly inefficient, and produces a buttload of CO2, but it's cleaner in terms of every major pollutant (CO, SOx, NOx, volatiles) than my old 73 Datsun with a 1.5L engine. My car got twice the gas mileage but was a lot dirtier overall.

[kelpdiver 2]

You're talking history.

I'll repeat - changing the EPA's spending now by a few percentage points has no bearing on the air emissions from cars. Much more would be gained by the action of the people. Of course we all (should) know about the freeloader problem.

The EPA can't and won't force a change in CAFE standards. Only Congress and the President can. It doesn't take money to pull new standards or force a given percentage of zero emission vehicles. Just votes.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Correct. It is much worse than that. Pollution sources are growing geometrically. Old sources are expanding AND new sources (ever heard of MTBE?) are coming on-line

So? That has nothing to do with funding. I am more than willing to bet that the EPA has a ton of fat they could get rid of.

If we increased the funding by 30% that fat would just grow. Ever business has cycles where they look at how they do business. Delta removed an olive from a salid and saved thousands. Its called cutting the fat.

Any Government agency has tons of fat. They need to be run like a business. One way of doing that is to cut funding and make them look at what is really important, and what is a waste.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumper03 0]

Quote

I don't agree with this "Chicken Little" argument that a 5% budget cut will make the sky fall. You've failed to provide any details to support your assertion. So far, all I've seen is just fear-mongering. It's time for you to do some homework and post the specifics.

Fear mongering? Well, first time I’ve ever been accused of that. To me this is not an issue on which homework has to be done so specifics can be provided. It is more an issue of common sense. You received the same training I did Mr. Rich. If you have a wounded Marine on the battlefield what do you do? By the numbers 1) Restore the breathing 2) Stop the bleeding 3) Protect the wound 4) Treat for shock. The Marine Corps knows that if you stop breathing it is all over. If we’re not getting oxygen, it doesn’t matter what else is going on. We can go weeks without food, days without water, try going 10 minutes without breathing. Beyond that, spend 10 minutes breathing dirty air – just go stand over a campfire and try to breathe. Try to breathe in downtown LA and see how good you feel.

First and foremost here, lets take the politics out of it before names get thrown out – I voted for Bush the first time, Badnarik the second time, hell I’ve voted for Jesse Helms – so politics go over here and lets reason this out.

What gets me most about this is that many people fail to realize we have ONE thing to pass onto our ancestors – not money, not security, not heirlooms – this planet. Its resources are finite, I don’t care how much money we throw at it. We must be good stewards of the environment. Even you can agree to that. In that last ten years how much has the view from Panther Junction degraded? A lot, I’ve seen it with my own eyes – because of coal fired plants in Mexico – and we have plenty of them here in the US as well, skirting as many laws as they can.

We must take care of the things we need to survive. Cutting the budget of an agency dedicated to protecting the things we need to survive is like slitting our throats. I’m paid by NASA and if it came down to me being paid or keeping the air clean, you keep the air clean. I’m sorry if you think I’m chicken little but that’s the way I see it (or don’t see it if I’m looking out from Panther Junction) and this dismissive, flippant attitude towards the environment from the administration and its vehement supporters gets my goat (or more aptly chokes and/or poisons my goat).

Scars remind us that the past is real

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The primary source of air pollution is from cars. No change in spending at the EPA will improve this, only people choosing more energy efficient cars, or Congress choosing to make them. Reduced oil consumption would be another reason to do so.

Yes.

It's like the trade deficit, with everyone griping about the weak dollar overseas, due to a net export of U.S. dollars. But no one wants to quit buying their Toyoto's and Honda's, and buy Ford's and Chevy's instead. It's kinda funny to watch these types driving an expensive foreign car, griping about this issue. It makes them such easy bait.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

I don't agree with this "Chicken Little" argument that a 5% budget cut will make the sky fall. You've failed to provide any details to support your assertion. So far, all I've seen is just fear-mongering. It's time for you to do some homework and post the specifics.

Fear mongering? Well, first time I’ve ever been accused of that. To me this is not an issue on which homework has to be done so specifics can be provided. It is more an issue of common sense. You received the same training I did Mr. Rich. If you have a wounded Marine on the battlefield what do you do? By the numbers 1) Restore the breathing 2) Stop the bleeding 3) Protect the wound 4) Treat for shock. The Marine Corps knows that if you stop breathing it is all over. If we’re not getting oxygen, it doesn’t matter what else is going on. We can go weeks without food, days without water, try going 10 minutes without breathing.

Well, it's kind of cute the way you express surprise at my suggestion of "fear mongering", and then go on to provide a stark example of exactly that.

No one is going to suffocate to death because of a 5% EPA budget cut. Yet you keep portraying it with gloom and doom examples like the one above.

What I asked for was a specific example of how a budget cut was going to make things worse. You've failed to provide that.

I'll do one for you, since you seem unwilling to provide specifics.

For example, you could have talked about how the EPA subsidy for upgrading old sewage treatment plants was being reduced. But that just means that the private water company is going to have to take out a loan to do the upgrade, and the people who use those water systems are going to have to pony up more money in their monthly bills to pay the debt. That's just private enterprise at work. The EPA isn't needed to step in and help out, at everyone else's expense. Just because the EPA subsidy will be reduced, doesn't mean that these people are going to have dirty water. The federal government is not the solution to every problem.

[Ron 10]

Quote

It's like the trade deficit, with everyone griping about the weak dollar overseas, due to a net export of U.S. dollars. But no one wants to quit buying their Toyoto's and Honda's, and buy Ford's and Chevy's instead

It is this kind of thinking that made me buy a Ford...

Having said that I wish I had not. It has been a pain in the ass.

I wish American cars were as reliable as the others.

But your point here is solid.

The EPA will cut some of its fat. The important programs will still be funded, they just may not have donuts at the meetings anymore.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The primary source of air pollution is from cars. No change in spending at the EPA will improve this, only people choosing more energy efficient cars, or Congress choosing to make them. Reduced oil consumption would be another reason to do so.

Yes.

It's like the trade deficit, with everyone griping about the weak dollar overseas, due to a net export of U.S. dollars. But no one wants to quit buying their Toyoto's and Honda's, and buy Ford's and Chevy's instead. It's kinda funny to watch these types driving an expensive foreign car, griping about this issue. It makes them such easy bait.

With GM building in Mexico while Honda and Toyota is building cars with borders, that question is getting a lot more muddled, but I'll grant it.

Unfortunately, the Big 3 really staked their entire business model on profitable but polluting SUVs and most of their development efforts have been in that realm, not in sedans or the more practical crossover AWDs like the Rav4 or the Outback. And the only successful motorcycle builder focused on image, not quality. (Though I think the current Harleys do come with emissions control)

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

This is an agency charged with making sure we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink.


and you want to cut it's funding????
WHY???

Is your next breath not worth much to you Mr. President?

Jump

Bush Budget cuts EPA funding.....WHY?

Without reading the entire thread, the reason he cut the funding and raised the allowable limits of arsinic in drinking water is for corporate profits. That's what Capitalistic countries do, they put corporate profits before people. I just wonder why it took Facism so long to take hold.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

This is an agency charged with making sure we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink.


and you want to cut it's funding????
WHY???

Is your next breath not worth much to you Mr. President?

Jump

Bush Budget cuts EPA funding.....WHY?

Without reading the entire thread, the reason he cut the funding and raised the allowable limits of arsinic in drinking water is for corporate profits. That's what Capitalistic countries do, they put corporate profits before people. I just wonder why it took Facism so long to take hold.

Actually, the levels are no different than they were during the Clinton presidency.

What Billy boy did, was an EO putting levels so low that they are basically unattainable by ANY company today, as I recall. That way he could leave office saying that he'd done something about the environment. The actual cite is left as an exercise by the reader.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Let's keep in mind one thing: "Cuts" are rarely "cuts"...as in, the budget last year was $50B, now it's going to be $40B. Most cuts are in the rate of growth. Planners probably budgeted for 4% growth, and got 2% in the proposed budget, that's considered a "cut" inside the political beltway. It reduces the rate of spending.

Remember, the overall $2.5Tr budget is "below the rate of inflation", meaning it's bigger than last year's budget.

From what I can see in the comparison/historical tables in the proposed budget, "Natural Resources and Environment" goes from roughly $31.7B (FY2004) to $30.9B (FY2005). That's less than a 3% actual cut.

Defense gets a bigger cut in dollars, albeit less percentage, from $453B to $450B. Agriculture goes from $20B to $22B.

In terms of function and sub-funtion of "Natural resources and environment" the breakdown is as follows:

300 Natural resources and environment   2004 est   2005 est

301 Water resources                   $5.655B    $5.003B

302 Conservation & land mgt           $10.360B   $9.982B

303 Recreational resources            $2.982B    $3.172B

304 Pollution control & abatement     $8.299B    $8.431B

306 Other natural resources           $4.369B    $4.311B

Total, Natural resources and envmt   $31.665B   $30.889B

Meanwhile, Transportation, Education, Health, Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, Law Enforcement, general government all get bumps upward in the budget. I don't see it as the end of the world.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TheAnvil 0]

Bzzt! Wrong! Read up on the arsenic issue and get back to us.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Without reading the entire thread...

Maybe that's part of your problem - you don't bother to read enough before jumping to your emotional judgements. And now you come out and admit your haven't read the entire thread - yet jump to conclusions like the one below.

Quote

...the reason he cut the funding and raised the allowable limits of arsinic in drinking water is for corporate profits. That's what Capitalistic countries do, they put corporate profits before people. I just wonder why it took Facism so long to take hold.

It's hard to take you seriously when you respond with "Facist" stuff like this. Along with other gems you've said lately, such as:

we are a classist nation that as of the last 25 years has modified of Socioeconomic and political agenda to Fascism... Since the Fascist Reagan era, that is gone, labor unions are gone, and corporations are running country for the greatest margin of prifit. What do the poor and middle class conservative Americans do?

the truth is that we're a rung or two above China when it comes to our justice system... And we're here to demoralize you, just as we did at Abu Graib... Unless our Fascist in Chief tells us to via Iran-Contra...

the US has started shit pretty much every place on Earth and has the gall to be offended when they strike back.

we (Anglo pioneers) came over here from the UK in search of freedom, killed approx 6 million occupants of what is now called the USA, and took over their country. We allowed the ones to live that would buy into and assume our ethnicity, hence Indian Schools. Yes, we are the beacon of liberty and freedom.

We have a funny way of defining liberty and freedom, but we are the best spin doctors when it comes to writing history.

The US is a bullshit place...

we mask and/or justify our imperialism with the crap about beacon of liberty and freedom...

Shit on the Const in the name of fear of terrorism - what a waste.

In the case of America we've bastardized it down to a representative democracy where we vote crooks into making those decisions for us.

There are more gems like those, but that's about all I can stomach right now. You are building quite an impressive collection of sayings which highlight your extreme unreasoning hatred of the U.S.

Even if you were to have some valid points to make, many people aren't going to pay attention to you, because of the tone you use to make your arguments.

[billvon 3,119]

> You're talking history.

Correct. You can often learn from history.

>I'll repeat - changing the EPA's spending now by a few percentage points
> has no bearing on the air emissions from cars.

EPA funding has, in the past, cleaned up the air. The argument "you can always cut their funding and never affect the job they do" is unsupportable. Imagine if such a standard were applied to you.

>Much more would be gained by the action of the people.

Of course! And as history has shown, in a capitalist society, people will always choose the path that makes them money rather than the path that benefits all people. That's how capitalism works, and how it's different from communism. Hoping people voluntarily become communist to solve an environmental problem makes little sense. A much better solution in a capitalist society is to make pollution expensive i.e. have a governmental means of making companies pay for the indirect damage their pollution does. Of course, that takes something like an EPA.

>The EPA can't and won't force a change in CAFE standards.

CAFE is fuel economy, not emissions. But I agree with the statement. The EPA enforces environmental law and does the science behind new laws and enforcement of old laws; it does not create the laws. Congress does that.

[billvon 3,119]

> I am more than willing to bet that the EPA has a ton of fat they could get rid of.

Right! Just like the FAA, and the military, and every other government organization. "Trimming the fat" is a statement that every single politician ever makes. How many times can you trim the fat off the same steak? How much fat could you trim from your salary?

If you have specific ideas for wasteful programs that could be cut, then it makes sense to discuss them. But "cutting the fat" from anything - whether it's a family's income, a medical program, a military requisition, whatever - is one of those feel-good political sayings that doesn't mean much.

>Delta removed an olive from a salid and saved thousands. Its called cutting the fat.

-------------------------
Struggling to avoid bankruptcy, airline posts losses three times larger than forecasts.
January 20, 2005: 1:39 PM EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Delta Air Lines Inc. posted a sharply wider fourth-quarter loss Thursday as it struggled with high fuel prices and low fares, and analysts warned of an even bigger loss in the first quarter of 2005, sending its shares tumbling.-

The No. 3 U.S. airline, which has narrowly avoided bankruptcy in the past few months, posted a net loss of $2.2 billion, or $16.58 a share, compared with a loss of $327 million, or $2.69 a share, a year earlier.
--------------------------------

This is your example of a company making good business decisions? Let's hope that the EPA never faces such a financial disaster.