Shortchanged: House GOP proposes mere 18% cut in EPA budget

It’s really shocking that the Tea Party-flavored, REPUBLICAN-controlled House is apparently OK with 82% of what the EPA does.

Below is the House Appropriations Committee’s summary of its proposed EPA FY 2012 appropriations bill:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – The EPA has been funded at unparalleled high levels over the past several years, leading to wasteful and unnecessary spending within the agency, as well as contributing to the agency’s regulatory over-reach, which has a detrimental effect on American businesses and the recovering economy.

The EPA is funded at $7.1 billion in the legislation, which is $1.5 billion – or 18% – below last year’s level, and $1.8 billion – or 20% – below the President’s request. In total, this funding level is below the fiscal year 2006 level by $468 million. The bill also caps EPA’s personnel at the 2010 level (the lowest since 1992), and rescinds certain unobligated grant and contract funding. Some of the other EPA cuts include:

  • $967 million cut in the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These funds received $6 billion in the “stimulus” legislation, and this cut brings these accounts to the fiscal year 2008 level
  • $102 million cut in grants for state implementation of environmental programs
  • $46 million cut in requested funding to regulate greenhouse gases
  • $422 million cut in EPA operations/administration
  • $76 million cut in EPA regulatory programs
  • $49 million cut in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
  • $4 million cut in the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Initiative
  • $8 million cut in the Puget Sound Restoration Initiative

Section 431 of the bill also delays greenhouse gas regulation and prohibits greenhouse gas lawsuits for a mere one year period.

If Republicans can’t get a grip on the EPA now — amid the worst economic conditions in three generations — what will it take? If this is the GOP’s starting position for negotiations, what will the compromise be? Shudder…

Don’t forget to check out Steve Milloy’s related op-ed in today’s Washington Times: Last chance for GOP to stop EPA train wreck.

5 thoughts on “Shortchanged: House GOP proposes mere 18% cut in EPA budget”

  1. It is depressing to think that ignorant kids with worthless degrees are filtering information for people with important positions in elective roles who are responsible for overseeing these agencies.

    untill the adolescents with no science knowledge and insight are removed, these congressmen and senators will be ineffective. the question is what is their excuse, that is, what is the excuse of professionals in the senate and congress, even engineers like joe barton? .

  2. Mr. Kozlovich. Let me give you a true to life example of precisely what you are talking about respecting our Congressman and their level of understanding of science as it relates to the environment. I setup a meeting for myself and two other people (two chemical engineers and a retired PhD from ORNL whose work has been featured on Climate Depot) to meet with Sen. Lamar Alexander’s lead advisor for science and agriculture. We had expressed strong opposition via letters issued from the coalition of Tennessee Tea Parties over Alexander’s incredible plan to replace as much coal-fired electric power with as many as 100 nuclear power plants. The cost for that plan is in the trillions. The presentation we developed was well thought out, giving the current state of global climate science and the dire economic reality of reducing U.S. GHG by 80%. When we arrived for our meeting and presentation we were introduced to a young man who was still attending college to obtain his engineering degree and a young woman who was a recent nuclear engineering grad. That was Alexander’s top staff scientific advisors. Of course, he has off-staff seasoned veteran advisors. But at the time he was only listening to policy makers at the NAS and scientists at ORNL, i.e, those on the federal AGW dole who will obviously tell him their side of the story. We like to think we impacted his policy as he stopped trumpeting his plan publicly at least (this was well before the Japan tsunami). But the point is that you are correct. Scientific ignorance abounds, especially beyond the Beltway. The Greens have taken full advantage of this and have concocted a very good propaganda scheme.

  3. One more thing! When a network (Fox) devotes 24/7 coverage of a murder trial it shows just how lazy they are intellectually and merit nothing by contempt from the public. The death of that child was a tragedy, but the death of that poor child and the surrounding trial was not an Earth shattering event. What about the hundreds of millions of children that are impacted negatively by greenie policies around the world?

    Can anyone really tell me that there can be any moral comparison? Dystopia follows the green movement like the plague follows rats and they devote minutes a year to the topic. If they were to devote this amount of time to a trial on the death of one child in a week or two, surely they can devote same amount of time about the actions of the EPA and the green movement over the course of a year.

  4. I can tell you personally that entirely too many of them just don’t get it. They have been browbeaten with the Green Litany for so long they haven’t figured out that every move the EPA makes is based on lies, so they haven’t taken the time to develop the intellectual responses….and that is the real problem…they don’t recognize the threat, believing that other things are more important.

    Then again; do you think that Fox news realizes it? You are on Fox occasionally, but only for just snippits of time; as a result you don’t have enough time to lay foundation for what has to be said. Worse yet if someone is on with O’Reilly it is impossible because he won’t shut his mouth long enough for something intelligent to be said. If that segment of the media isn’t beating the drum, then it won’t be beaten, and it is clear….they don’t get it either.

    When they have hearings they need someone there who actually has stood against them for years because their arguments are mostly the same….they appeal to emotion and we appeal to information. Those who have been in the trenches for many years understand that we must be prepared to blend these two components to win; but entirely too many legislators won’t work that hard at it. You would think that since so many of them are attorneys they would instinctively recognize a logical fallacy when they see one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.