I think that you need to listen to Dr. Walter Williams a little more. :D
shifting burden of Superfund toxic waste cleanups from polluters to taxpayers.
Where do you imagine "the polluters" get the money to pay for "toxic waste cleanups"? You have hopefully already answered that question yourself. See, capitalism-hating liberals are the way they are because of their complete ignorance of economic realities. They actually view "big greedy corporations" as people-less entities. Maybe they think corporations are skyscrapers or buildings or something. Sorry I can't be more clear, but the liberal mindset is so alien to me that clarity when discussing liberals is not possible for me.
Regards,
LH
Bush administration reluctant to reimpose Superfund tax
Chemical Market Reporter, March 18,2002
THE BUSH administration is committed to a "polluter pays" principle for cleaning up Superfund toxic waste sites, but is reluctant to reimpose a special tax on the chemical and oil industries, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told Congress last week.
Testifying before House appropriators, EPA administrator Christie Whitman said the administration did not ask Congress to renew the tax in its fiscal 2003 budget request because lawmakers have not overhauled the Superfund law since the mid-1980s.
"We need to take another look at Superfund and see if anything needs to be done before we move forward to reauthorize [the tax]," Mrs. Whitman says. "Things have changed since the tax was first imposed."
The Superfund tax on chemical and petroleum companies and other businesses that process toxic substances expired at the end of 1995. [So the "shift" occured under Clinton's watch, not Bush's] Revenues generated by the tax went into the Superfund Trust Fund, which EPA uses to help cover cleanup costs at abandoned toxic waste sites.
Because authority to collect the tax has expired, the trust fund has dwindled from a high of $3.6 billion in 1996 to a projected $28 million next year.
Under the administration's $7.7 billion budget request for EPA in fiscal 2003, $1.3 billion would go to the Superfund program, with $593 million coming from the trust fund and $700 million from general revenues.
Mrs. Whitman says companies responsible for contamination are paying for cleanups at 70 percent of the 1,222 sites on EPA'S national priority list, an indication that "polluters" are paying most of the costs. The trust fund is being used to clean up the other 30 percent of sites, she says.
Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee are trying to pin down Mrs. Whitman on whether the administration would support renewal of the Superfund tax, but she says the question should be directed to the White House Office of Management & Budget.
"It's a decision of the White House," Mrs. Whitman says, adding that Congress' "disinclination toward reauthorization" indicates "that there are problems with the program that need to be addressed."
The EPA chief says the administration had not yet decided how to deal with the Superfund program, but she suggests that the special tax was unfair.
"One of the concerns that I know the President has had about the way the Superfund tax is imposed is that it's not all on polluters," she says.
With the trust fund nearing depletion, the administrator says she has directed EPA's Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response to prioritize sites for future cleanup.
The chemical and oil industries have steadfastly opposed reinstatement of the taxes, arguing that after fiscal 2003, Congress should appropriate additional funding to keep the cleanup program running.
A group of House Democrats led by Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey have announced plans to introduce legislation that would reinstate the taxes for five years.
_________________________________________________________________________
So, contrary to what SC claims, Bush hasn't "shifted the burden onto the taxpayer" -- 70% of it is on industry. Nor has Bush proposed the elimenation of Superfund appropriation. He has only called for re-evaluation of the program in line with current conditions and with recognized inequities in the imposition of the tax. He rightfully want these issues addressed before charging ahead with renewal of a tax that already expired 8 years ago during the Clinton administration.