The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
no, the gop's push, actually the teabag push, is to get rid of it all together. let's not mince words or sugarcoat it, shall we?
Tea Partywants to kill the EPA. Obama has expanded the EPA.
One is a wish, the other is reality.
I worry about reality more then wishes. Reality is, expansion of the EPA is an expansion of federal government and small business will suffer as result. My opinions are based on my observations while doing construction for big business and small business.
Back in the Bush years, he was manipulating the EPA to accommodate his agenda (anti-environment). So is that basically what you're acknowledging? That the EPA (and probably other agencies) are at the mercy of the sitting president's agenda? If the sitting party was the GOP, they actually would have the power to kill the agency altogether? I wouldn't think any sitting president would have that power... to actually dismiss an entire agency... Regardless of what the tea party and the GOP want. Regardless, the bureaucracy involved has got to go, and the EPA should do what it's supposed to do, regardless of who's in office.
The EPA is a necessary evil (maybe not the right word). The tough part is finding the right balance of policing and outright bureaucracy. I think our political affections steer us towards thinking they are 100% good or 100% bad.
They are necessary because without them we would be just like China. It's human nature to be only concerned with the finished product and if we could dump waste into the sky and water, most would. But they do exist and they do have a very large impact.
Government agencies tend not to consider the impact of new regulations and if they are practical. The EPA operates in a black-and-white world. There is no consideration for logic or reasoning when dealing with a federal agency. Sure, you can make an appeal, but this involves a lengthy process and legal services .... and even if your appeal is logical, you still have a low chance of the EPA agreeing with you. This impacts business and especially small businesses who do not have the financial resources to make adapt on the fly to new regulations.
For those that lean left, the EPA is full-front and in center of Industry. Corporations are not just dumping toxic waste into streams. Every once in a while there is a spill or case where a corporation does dump waste and then the threads start up and everyone starts talking smack on big business. Working first hand with the EPA, and can say that is not the case. The EPA is dug in like an Alabama tick.
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
My thought is to keep their power at the current level. Do not expand or shrink.
...
This is one of the truest comments out here. The EPA exists only because business has proven that they cannot police themselves.
What I feel needs to be done is this:
A. Put sciencists in charge of the decisions and
B. De-politicize those agencies that are in charge of regulations.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
no, the gop's push, actually the teabag push, is to get rid of it all together. let's not mince words or sugarcoat it, shall we?
TEABAG is a deragatory term- and I take offense. Good thing I don't run to the mods like some people ....
In related news, tomorrow I am buying some West Texas light, sweet crude and adding to my position of Caterpillar, you know, those big earth moving machines that burn diesel. They are having a fire sale if you didn't notice. No kidding.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
no, the gop's push, actually the teabag push, is to get rid of it all together. let's not mince words or sugarcoat it, shall we?
TEABAG is a deragatory term- and I take offense. Good thing I don't run to the mods like some people ....
Though I have not done so for some time, but I'll cop to having used the term "Tea Bagger" in the past so will apologize for past offenses.
I would also point out that others here have used the term "Gub'ment" (or however it's spelled) which is also derogatory. In the past, I have been a government employee. I have other hard working family members who have also worked in the government. It might be useful to remember that most government employees are just folks like you and I.
I've also noticed some posts that come very close to trolling. Hey, I'm not playing forum police here, but baiting others who post their thoughts here just seems wrong. If any of you ever perceive me to do that, call me on it. I'll do my best to play fair here.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
no, the gop's push, actually the teabag push, is to get rid of it all together. let's not mince words or sugarcoat it, shall we?
TEABAG is a deragatory term- and I take offense. Good thing I don't run to the mods like some people ....
i did not run to a mod, so i don't know what you are referring to...
and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Short answer: Republicans don't like regulation.
...
We should let everyone regulate themselves... you know, like the way the Wall Streeters and banks regulated themselves. Because, everyone is honest and looks out for what best for all of us, not just THEIR best interests... right?
Cosmo, you are correct, as is everyone else in saying that not everyone is honest and in it for the best interests of everyone else. But what power do dishonest people / corporations actually have if their products and services aren't forced on other people, and there isn't a huge forceful entity constantly tipping the scales and bending the rules in their favor? There will always be pricks and thieves. I simply prefer for them to not have this type of authority over me that I mention here above. The only way to do that, is to not give that authority to anyone.
I'm not saying abolish government. I am saying to completely revamp it in such a way that the rules are simple, specific, and leave room for the greatest amount of freedom and innovation to take place, while favoring no one group / religion / company any more than anyone else.
But that's not going to happen, realistically, Vinny. See, I think the easiest way to not rely on services forced upon us (via energy, anyway) is to live off the grid. Sure that means creating your own power for your home and car, but personally, if I had the tools and strength, I would not hesitate to create my own power. Waiting around for things to change is waiting on a dream.
I can't argue with the need for independence, Jean-- it's what I'm all about. Going off the grid though, is not such an easy task, especially where you and I live (NY). Move down south, and your chances of doing it increase tenfold. Give it 20 years though, and I think we'll have a lot more people who are energy independent. I've seen in my business that the ability to get away from fossil fuels has gotten much better in the past 7 years, and the costs are starting to come into line. The problem is the electric power requirement. I don't know very much about wind or hydro power, but I do know that solar power, especially when it comes to truly getting off the grid and using batteries instead of a back-up hook up to the local utility is still a long ways off in terms of cost, maintenance, and convenience. So for now, coal, nuclear, etc... is still necessary to produce enough energy in your home, if you desire any level of convenience at all. Now, if you want to live in a cabin with no running water, heat, etc... You're there! Still gotta pay those school and property taxes though, and it's kind of hard to hold a job when showering regularly isn't always in the equation
i did not run to a mod, so i don't know what you are referring to...
and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
i did not run to a mod, so i don't know what you are referring to...
and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
NAACP
Hindsight is 20 / 20 my friend.
i don't follow your post...
:? :?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i did not run to a mod, so i don't know what you are referring to...
and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
NAACP
Hindsight is 20 / 20 my friend.
i don't follow your post...
:? :?
At one point, the "C" word was not offensive. Following your logic above, it would be acceptable to that term on this board and just reference the NAACP if anyone protested.
Be Excellent To Each Other
Party On, Dudes!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
I have other hard working family members who have also worked in the government.
I call bullshit.
Like I've said elsewhere, I don't buy into being bated. You don't know me or my family. Just curious, is this post intended to be insulting? Sorry, not fazed. Please, try coming up with something more useful next time or troll elsewhere. :roll:
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
At one point, the "C" word was not offensive. Following your logic above, it would be acceptable to that term on this board and just reference the NAACP if anyone protested.
the c word was not offensive to who??
well if you want to call african americans "colored folks" like a southerner in the 1950s be my guest. but do it at the risk of sounding like a fool..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
As for sounding like a fool, I apply that towards those that use derogatory names while debating. It's counterproductive to proving your point and just angers people.
As for sounding like a fool, I apply that towards those that use derogatory names while debating. It's counterproductive to proving your point and just angers people.
they called themselves teabaggers.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
At one point, the "C" word was not offensive. Following your logic above, it would be acceptable to that term on this board and just reference the NAACP if anyone protested.
the c word was not offensive to who??
well if you want to call african americans "colored folks" like a southerner in the 1950s be my guest. but do it at the risk of sounding like a fool..
Not everyone in the South called African-Americans "colored folks" in the 50's.
Calling Southerners "fools" is a deragatory generalization about an entire region of people.
I find this offensive. You would do well to read the posting guidelines before you post- lest you get banned.
At one point, the "C" word was not offensive. Following your logic above, it would be acceptable to that term on this board and just reference the NAACP if anyone protested.
the c word was not offensive to who??
well if you want to call african americans "colored folks" like a southerner in the 1950s be my guest. but do it at the risk of sounding like a fool..
Not everyone in the South called African-Americans "colored folks" in the 50's.
Calling Southerners "fools" is a deragatory generalization about an entire region of people.
I find this offensive. You would do well to read the posting guidelines before you post- lest you get banned.
ok moderator...
:roll:
how about addressing the topic in the thread rather than having yet another go at me?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
As for sounding like a fool, I apply that towards those that use derogatory names while debating. It's counterproductive to proving your point and just angers people.
they called themselves teabaggers.
I'd like to see your source for this.
Do you call African-Americans the "N-word"?
African-Americans call eachother the "N" word, but that doesn't mean you or I should.
Start showing respect for other groups of people, and you will be more respected.
Make derogatory generalizations about Tea-party members or Southerners again, and I WILL REPORT YOU.
i was reported to the mods for doing something similar...by someone who just did something similar.
Now back on topic of excessive regulation. That is what the thread is about right? I don't throw my cigarette butts in the street. i love the environment and I self police.
African-Americans call eachother the "N" word, but that doesn't mean you or I should.
Start showing respect for other groups of people, and you will be more respected.
Make derogatory generalizations about Tea-party members or Southerners again, and I WILL REPORT YOU.
i don't need a source for that. if you had been paying attention when the tea party first started having rallies you would remember that they called themselves teabaggers. do your own digging. the proof is out there on the internet...
also, you can not compare the word teabagger to the n word. that is a very sad analogy and they are historically not even on the same level.
did slaves call themselves the n word? no. did the slave owners call them that? yes. and so did white society in the south. one of the outcomes of the civil rights movement was that that word is not socially acceptable anymore.
for you to compare the 3 year struggle of a few hundred thousand extremely right of center republicans that stapled lipton tea bags to their hats to that of 400 years african american persecution is not only laughable, but THAT is truely offensive..
and like i have said before, i don't need or want your respect. i have enough friends on this board. carry on please...
now back on topic...
i think cutting the epa is a horrible idea.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Environmental regulations were a prime target of House Republican appropriators last year, and that is making advocates of the rules jittery about what will happen in the 112th Congress.
With a single sentence in a spending bill, appropriators can starve a program or initiative of money, crippling it or even stopping it cold.
And once Republicans are in control of the House and the Appropriations Committee, they will have no trouble writing so-called limitation amendments into fiscal 2012 spending bills stating that “none of the funds” provided to an agency can be used to carry out a specified task.
During the July 22 markup of the House’s fiscal 2011 Interior-Environment spending bill, GOP appropriators offered eight amendments that sought to change or block EPA policies.
That tops the five amendments that sought to amend, repeal or prohibit publicity for the health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) offered during the markup of the fiscal 2011 Labor-HHS-Education bill on July 15, and the one amendment directly addressing the financial regulatory overhaul (PL 111-203) offered during markup of the Financial Services bill on July 29.
Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council calls limitation amendments and similar directives in appropriations bills “policy earmarks,” because they can block federal actions by shutting off funds.
These may have “less legitimacy than the old-fashioned” earmarks, which merely direct a chunk of federal spending to a lawmaker’s favored projects, Matzner said. The ability to block funding for an entire program can affect people across the nation, he noted.
“Appropriations bills have always been fertile territory for these kinds of mischievous policy sneak attacks,” said Matzner, climate legislative director for the council, a nonprofit environmental group.
Democrats and Republicans alike have used this tactic for decades to block federal agencies from taking actions that they did not like. The “none of the funds” approach gets around a general prohibition against legislating policy changes in an appropriations bill, while still accomplishing a policy objective.
In the 1980s, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, used the tactic to preserve hunters’ right to use lead shot, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in recent years relied on it to prevent the shooting of deer in a park in Marin County, Calif.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., barred the Agriculture Department for several years from using federal funds to clear imports of poultry from China, arguing that such poultry products posed a health risk to consumers. That action led China to launch a protest at the World Trade Organization and was long opposed by U.S. producers of beef and pork, who feared retaliation against their own products.
Since at least 1995, appropriators have also blocked the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service from ending Saturday service, a direction tucked into spending bills written by both Democrats and Republicans. The Postal Service has estimated that it could see annual savings of about $3 billion from ending Saturday service.
A former staff director of the House Appropriations Committee said that lawmakers need to weigh the risks of overusing their power to withhold funds to change policy.
Lawmakers do get “very broad authority to restrict or redirect the activities of the executive branch” when House and Senate appropriators agree to deny funds to a program, said Scott Lilly, who served as both clerk and minority staff director of the House Appropriations Committee.
“If Congress becomes too assertive in the use of such powers it is likely to face considerable public scrutiny,” Lilly said. “In other words, there are a lot of things that Congress may do under the Constitution that are better left undone if the ruling party wishes to remain in power.”
With the Republican takeover of the House, the Natural Resources Defense Council is particularly worried about the likely renewal of an effort that appropriator Steven C. LaTourette, R-Ohio, made in July to block the EPA from putting in place regulations regarding smog.
The EPA in January proposed tightening the air-quality standard for ground-level ozone to between 60 and 70 parts per billion, down from a 75-ppb standard established in 2008.
Ozone, a form of oxygen, forms a protective layer against the sun’s rays in the outer atmosphere. Closer to the ground, it is a component of smog. Many groups, including the American Lung Association, have supported the EPA’s effort to tighten the standard.
But the Chamber of Commerce has protested that it would have “potentially devastating consequences” on business and industry, and would be “the equivalent of hitting the ‘stop’ button on development in the midst of a recession.” It applauded the EPA’s early December decision to delay until July 2011 a final decision on the new ozone rule.
The House Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee last year rejected LaTourette’s amendment to bar the EPA from using any of its fiscal 2011 funding to promulgate the tighter standard. The amendment failed 5-8 in a party-line vote.
Republicans on the panel argued that LaTourette’s amendment would have continued environmental rules established just three years ago that have yet to be implemented or evaluated.
Sometimes, appropriators do not need to go as far as blocking funds for specific programs. Instead, just by registering their displeasure with a program they can add to the pressure on an agency to change its rules.
At a June markup, House appropriator JoAnn Emerson, R-Mo., proposed and then withdrew an amendment that would have blocked the Department of Agriculture from aiding EPA if the environmental agency went ahead with plans to make dairies comply with pending regulations intended to prevent oil spills.
The fat content of milk had moved its storage containers wrongly into the scope of this rule, according to a trade group, the Dairy Farmers of America.
In July, the House Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee adopted an amendment offered by Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, that sought to prompt EPA to exempt dairies from regulations intended to prevent oil spills.
The EPA appears to have listened to these complaints and others made about its pending Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule, according to Jackie Klippenstein, vice president of legislative and industry affairs for Dairy Farmers of America.
“Staff at the EPA have indicated that they will soon be finalizing the proposed SPCC rule to exempt milk storage containers,” she said in a Dec. 29 e-mail. “This was the goal of many legislative efforts last year.”
Democrats will remain in control of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and will fight House GOP efforts to deny funding for implementation of major environmental regulations, the health care overhaul and the financial regulatory overhaul. President Obama, with his veto pen, can backstop the Senate Democrats.
But if House Republicans pepper limitation provisions throughout the appropriations bills, even as they make deep cuts in spending on domestic programs, they could prevail on some of the lesser ones as the White House bargains to protect its top priorities.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
Thank you all for getting back on topic.
I can only see two reasons for wanting to gut the EPA:
1. A total distrust of the governments ability to be effective. Almost everyone agrees there is inefficiancy in the government but only a very small minority truly want to disband the government and that is unlikely to happen. Rather than complain about government ineffiency it would make more sense to vote for people who will work for the people to make a positive difference. Or:
2. Because those who want to disband the EPA do not want any impediments, government or otherwise, to making greater profits even if that means continued environmental degradation and human and animal suffering.
Let's face it, for better or for worse as long as civiliaztion holds together (the collapse of civilization being an interesting subject worth pursuing elsewhere) there will be governments. The collapse of ecosystems will eventually lead to a larger die-off of species than the already accelerated rate that is now happening and there is no reason human being would not be included in that list. Being somewhat large mammals, that is actually a likelyhood if the oceans fail, the climate changes too dramatically or disease overcomes us. These are simple biological facts. So I'll re-state my original question:
Why would the GOP-- or anybody else, for that matter, kill the EPA?
I'll add that making sincere efforts to make a positive difference seems much more useful to me than talking about the "rapture" or saying something like, "Well, we're screwed anyway so let's just have fun and not worry about future generations"-- and I say that as someone who has had a fairly long and full life-- maybe even my fair share so yes, I'm thinking about our kids and future generations.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Why would the GOP-- or anybody else, for that matter, kill the EPA?
"Kill" is a sensationalized use of a word for this article. For that word to hold true, the article needs to suggest that the GOP intends to abolish the EPA. From what I gathered in the article, they were going after 6 provisions that are not on magnitude that the Dems will dig in and fight for.
This is a bunch of hooey and applesauce in my opinion.
Be Excellent To Each Other
Party On, Dudes!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
Why would the GOP-- or anybody else, for that matter, kill the EPA?
"Kill" is a sensationalized use of a word for this article. For that word to hold true, the article needs to suggest that the GOP intends to abolish the EPA. From what I gathered in the article, they were going after 6 provisions that are not on magnitude that the Dems will dig in and fight for.
This is a bunch of hooey and applesauce in my opinion.
Excellent call, Jason P. My choice of the word "kill" was poor- very poor. The article uses the word "gut". Let's call that too extreme as well, just for arguments sake. Instead, let's use an accurate word: "Weaken". And I'll re-phrase my question and add another:
Why would the GOP or anybody else, for that matter, want to weaken the EPA?
and:
Why is this and so many other environmental issues so often partisan issues-- don't we all want to live in a safe and healthy world?
Thank you, Jason P and I hope this issue is no longer hooey and applesauce-- maybe closer now to honey and organic apples.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
Back in the Bush years, he was manipulating the EPA to accommodate his agenda (anti-environment). So is that basically what you're acknowledging? That the EPA (and probably other agencies) are at the mercy of the sitting president's agenda? If the sitting party was the GOP, they actually would have the power to kill the agency altogether? I wouldn't think any sitting president would have that power... to actually dismiss an entire agency... Regardless of what the tea party and the GOP want. Regardless, the bureaucracy involved has got to go, and the EPA should do what it's supposed to do, regardless of who's in office.
This is one of the truest comments out here. The EPA exists only because business has proven that they cannot police themselves.
What I feel needs to be done is this:
A. Put sciencists in charge of the decisions and
B. De-politicize those agencies that are in charge of regulations.
Hail, Hail!!!
Though I have not done so for some time, but I'll cop to having used the term "Tea Bagger" in the past so will apologize for past offenses.
I would also point out that others here have used the term "Gub'ment" (or however it's spelled) which is also derogatory. In the past, I have been a government employee. I have other hard working family members who have also worked in the government. It might be useful to remember that most government employees are just folks like you and I.
I've also noticed some posts that come very close to trolling. Hey, I'm not playing forum police here, but baiting others who post their thoughts here just seems wrong. If any of you ever perceive me to do that, call me on it. I'll do my best to play fair here.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
How about the EPA goes after them?
and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Too late
I can't argue with the need for independence, Jean-- it's what I'm all about. Going off the grid though, is not such an easy task, especially where you and I live (NY). Move down south, and your chances of doing it increase tenfold. Give it 20 years though, and I think we'll have a lot more people who are energy independent. I've seen in my business that the ability to get away from fossil fuels has gotten much better in the past 7 years, and the costs are starting to come into line. The problem is the electric power requirement. I don't know very much about wind or hydro power, but I do know that solar power, especially when it comes to truly getting off the grid and using batteries instead of a back-up hook up to the local utility is still a long ways off in terms of cost, maintenance, and convenience. So for now, coal, nuclear, etc... is still necessary to produce enough energy in your home, if you desire any level of convenience at all. Now, if you want to live in a cabin with no running water, heat, etc... You're there! Still gotta pay those school and property taxes though, and it's kind of hard to hold a job when showering regularly isn't always in the equation
Classic...
I call bullshit.
Hindsight is 20 / 20 my friend.
:? :?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Like I've said elsewhere, I don't buy into being bated. You don't know me or my family. Just curious, is this post intended to be insulting? Sorry, not fazed. Please, try coming up with something more useful next time or troll elsewhere. :roll:
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
well if you want to call african americans "colored folks" like a southerner in the 1950s be my guest. but do it at the risk of sounding like a fool..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
As for sounding like a fool, I apply that towards those that use derogatory names while debating. It's counterproductive to proving your point and just angers people.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I do...so what...?
Not everyone in the South called African-Americans "colored folks" in the 50's.
Calling Southerners "fools" is a deragatory generalization about an entire region of people.
I find this offensive. You would do well to read the posting guidelines before you post- lest you get banned.
:roll:
how about addressing the topic in the thread rather than having yet another go at me?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'd like to see your source for this.
Do you call African-Americans the "N-word"?
African-Americans call eachother the "N" word, but that doesn't mean you or I should.
Start showing respect for other groups of people, and you will be more respected.
Make derogatory generalizations about Tea-party members or Southerners again, and I WILL REPORT YOU.
It's a derogatory and offensive generalization regarding an entire group of people. It's against the posting guidelines, and it is off topic.
This thread is about the relevance of the EPA, not discriminating against millions of people because they have a different political view.
Now back on topic of excessive regulation. That is what the thread is about right? I don't throw my cigarette butts in the street. i love the environment and I self police.
woot
also, you can not compare the word teabagger to the n word. that is a very sad analogy and they are historically not even on the same level.
did slaves call themselves the n word? no. did the slave owners call them that? yes. and so did white society in the south. one of the outcomes of the civil rights movement was that that word is not socially acceptable anymore.
for you to compare the 3 year struggle of a few hundred thousand extremely right of center republicans that stapled lipton tea bags to their hats to that of 400 years african american persecution is not only laughable, but THAT is truely offensive..
and like i have said before, i don't need or want your respect. i have enough friends on this board. carry on please...
now back on topic...
i think cutting the epa is a horrible idea.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
things listed here that they are trying to limit is just craziness...
GOP likely to impede EPA efforts
House Republicans may limit funds to target environmental regulations
http://www.congress.org/news/2011/01/03 ... pa_efforts
Environmental regulations were a prime target of House Republican appropriators last year, and that is making advocates of the rules jittery about what will happen in the 112th Congress.
With a single sentence in a spending bill, appropriators can starve a program or initiative of money, crippling it or even stopping it cold.
And once Republicans are in control of the House and the Appropriations Committee, they will have no trouble writing so-called limitation amendments into fiscal 2012 spending bills stating that “none of the funds” provided to an agency can be used to carry out a specified task.
During the July 22 markup of the House’s fiscal 2011 Interior-Environment spending bill, GOP appropriators offered eight amendments that sought to change or block EPA policies.
That tops the five amendments that sought to amend, repeal or prohibit publicity for the health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) offered during the markup of the fiscal 2011 Labor-HHS-Education bill on July 15, and the one amendment directly addressing the financial regulatory overhaul (PL 111-203) offered during markup of the Financial Services bill on July 29.
Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council calls limitation amendments and similar directives in appropriations bills “policy earmarks,” because they can block federal actions by shutting off funds.
These may have “less legitimacy than the old-fashioned” earmarks, which merely direct a chunk of federal spending to a lawmaker’s favored projects, Matzner said. The ability to block funding for an entire program can affect people across the nation, he noted.
“Appropriations bills have always been fertile territory for these kinds of mischievous policy sneak attacks,” said Matzner, climate legislative director for the council, a nonprofit environmental group.
Democrats and Republicans alike have used this tactic for decades to block federal agencies from taking actions that they did not like. The “none of the funds” approach gets around a general prohibition against legislating policy changes in an appropriations bill, while still accomplishing a policy objective.
In the 1980s, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, used the tactic to preserve hunters’ right to use lead shot, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in recent years relied on it to prevent the shooting of deer in a park in Marin County, Calif.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., barred the Agriculture Department for several years from using federal funds to clear imports of poultry from China, arguing that such poultry products posed a health risk to consumers. That action led China to launch a protest at the World Trade Organization and was long opposed by U.S. producers of beef and pork, who feared retaliation against their own products.
Since at least 1995, appropriators have also blocked the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service from ending Saturday service, a direction tucked into spending bills written by both Democrats and Republicans. The Postal Service has estimated that it could see annual savings of about $3 billion from ending Saturday service.
A former staff director of the House Appropriations Committee said that lawmakers need to weigh the risks of overusing their power to withhold funds to change policy.
Lawmakers do get “very broad authority to restrict or redirect the activities of the executive branch” when House and Senate appropriators agree to deny funds to a program, said Scott Lilly, who served as both clerk and minority staff director of the House Appropriations Committee.
“If Congress becomes too assertive in the use of such powers it is likely to face considerable public scrutiny,” Lilly said. “In other words, there are a lot of things that Congress may do under the Constitution that are better left undone if the ruling party wishes to remain in power.”
With the Republican takeover of the House, the Natural Resources Defense Council is particularly worried about the likely renewal of an effort that appropriator Steven C. LaTourette, R-Ohio, made in July to block the EPA from putting in place regulations regarding smog.
The EPA in January proposed tightening the air-quality standard for ground-level ozone to between 60 and 70 parts per billion, down from a 75-ppb standard established in 2008.
Ozone, a form of oxygen, forms a protective layer against the sun’s rays in the outer atmosphere. Closer to the ground, it is a component of smog. Many groups, including the American Lung Association, have supported the EPA’s effort to tighten the standard.
But the Chamber of Commerce has protested that it would have “potentially devastating consequences” on business and industry, and would be “the equivalent of hitting the ‘stop’ button on development in the midst of a recession.” It applauded the EPA’s early December decision to delay until July 2011 a final decision on the new ozone rule.
The House Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee last year rejected LaTourette’s amendment to bar the EPA from using any of its fiscal 2011 funding to promulgate the tighter standard. The amendment failed 5-8 in a party-line vote.
Republicans on the panel argued that LaTourette’s amendment would have continued environmental rules established just three years ago that have yet to be implemented or evaluated.
Sometimes, appropriators do not need to go as far as blocking funds for specific programs. Instead, just by registering their displeasure with a program they can add to the pressure on an agency to change its rules.
At a June markup, House appropriator JoAnn Emerson, R-Mo., proposed and then withdrew an amendment that would have blocked the Department of Agriculture from aiding EPA if the environmental agency went ahead with plans to make dairies comply with pending regulations intended to prevent oil spills.
The fat content of milk had moved its storage containers wrongly into the scope of this rule, according to a trade group, the Dairy Farmers of America.
In July, the House Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee adopted an amendment offered by Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, that sought to prompt EPA to exempt dairies from regulations intended to prevent oil spills.
The EPA appears to have listened to these complaints and others made about its pending Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule, according to Jackie Klippenstein, vice president of legislative and industry affairs for Dairy Farmers of America.
“Staff at the EPA have indicated that they will soon be finalizing the proposed SPCC rule to exempt milk storage containers,” she said in a Dec. 29 e-mail. “This was the goal of many legislative efforts last year.”
Democrats will remain in control of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and will fight House GOP efforts to deny funding for implementation of major environmental regulations, the health care overhaul and the financial regulatory overhaul. President Obama, with his veto pen, can backstop the Senate Democrats.
But if House Republicans pepper limitation provisions throughout the appropriations bills, even as they make deep cuts in spending on domestic programs, they could prevail on some of the lesser ones as the White House bargains to protect its top priorities.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I can only see two reasons for wanting to gut the EPA:
1. A total distrust of the governments ability to be effective. Almost everyone agrees there is inefficiancy in the government but only a very small minority truly want to disband the government and that is unlikely to happen. Rather than complain about government ineffiency it would make more sense to vote for people who will work for the people to make a positive difference. Or:
2. Because those who want to disband the EPA do not want any impediments, government or otherwise, to making greater profits even if that means continued environmental degradation and human and animal suffering.
Let's face it, for better or for worse as long as civiliaztion holds together (the collapse of civilization being an interesting subject worth pursuing elsewhere) there will be governments. The collapse of ecosystems will eventually lead to a larger die-off of species than the already accelerated rate that is now happening and there is no reason human being would not be included in that list. Being somewhat large mammals, that is actually a likelyhood if the oceans fail, the climate changes too dramatically or disease overcomes us. These are simple biological facts. So I'll re-state my original question:
Why would the GOP-- or anybody else, for that matter, kill the EPA?
I'll add that making sincere efforts to make a positive difference seems much more useful to me than talking about the "rapture" or saying something like, "Well, we're screwed anyway so let's just have fun and not worry about future generations"-- and I say that as someone who has had a fairly long and full life-- maybe even my fair share so yes, I'm thinking about our kids and future generations.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
This is a bunch of hooey and applesauce in my opinion.
Excellent call, Jason P. My choice of the word "kill" was poor- very poor. The article uses the word "gut". Let's call that too extreme as well, just for arguments sake. Instead, let's use an accurate word: "Weaken". And I'll re-phrase my question and add another:
Why would the GOP or anybody else, for that matter, want to weaken the EPA?
and:
Why is this and so many other environmental issues so often partisan issues-- don't we all want to live in a safe and healthy world?
Thank you, Jason P and I hope this issue is no longer hooey and applesauce-- maybe closer now to honey and organic apples.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"