Thursday, June 15, 2017

Trump’s EPA budget cuts hit strong opposition at House panel

House lawmakers repeatedly told the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that many of the Trump administration’s proposed cuts for that agency will not fly. Members of both parties identified major problems they had with the proposed 30 percent cut to the EPA’s budget and pressed Administrator Scott Pruitt to defend them...more

And those courageous Republicans, who claim they support a balanced budget and smaller gov't, weigh in:

“In many instances, the budget proposes to significantly reduce or terminate programs that are vitally important to each member on this subcommittee,” Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the subcommittee’s chairman, told Pruitt at the hearing. Calvert pointed to proposals like eliminating a local air quality grant program, slashing a program to reduce diesel emissions and big cuts to the Superfund budget as areas he disagrees with.

While the GOP has years of pent-up anger against the EPA for what it saw as overreach under former President Barack Obama, Republicans don’t want to punish the agency with the kind of cuts Trump has envisioned.

This gives you some insight into the Washington mindset. To cut an agency's budget is to "punish" it. They are willing to punish the taxpayer and the regulated community, but not the EPA?  

“The Mulvaney budget, if enacted, would cripple our collective efforts, halt the progress we are making and undermine the investments that we are making today,” Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) said of the elimination of funding for Great Lakes cleanup. He made it a point to name the budget after White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a House member up until earlier this year.

They are even willing to criticize, or dare I say punish, a fellow Republican for having a hand in crafting the budget reductions. Whatever it takes to "defend" EPA programs.

“It’s important to note that Congress has cut the agency quite a bit before you got there, and quite a bit recently, in relative terms,” said Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.).

We've done some things right in the past, but surely you don't expect us to continue, or even expand, upon that today and into the future. How foolish of you to think that way.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Never saw any difference between Dems & Reps - it all depends on which side of their bread is buttered.

They're almost all city people, anyway, which is why they've historically shown indifference towards farmers and ranchers.

And they make money off each other - Dems pass the regulations that the Reps get rich off of by selling the goods & services that the public is then required to buy in order comply with those regulations.

Like 'green' energy light bulbs, smog checks & health insurance.

Enviro Dems force people off their land to 'protect' it, then once they get title to it, they sell the land to a Rep. urban developer.