Bush Seeks Nearly 6 Pct Cut in Environment Funding

Reuters ^ | February 7, 2005 | Chris Baltimore

[RWR8189]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Monday proposed cutting the Environmental Protection Agency budget by nearly 6 percent to $7.57 billion in fiscal 2006 by targeting a program that helps cities replace aging sewage systems.

The EPA said the requested reduction was part of the federal government's overall belt-tightening, but environmental groups said it would hurt an important clean water program.

Total EPA funding would decline from $8 billion, which Congress allocated in the current budget year for the agency to protect the nation's air, water and land. In 2004, the EPA had a budget of $8.4 billion.

Acting EPA administrator Steve Johnson defended the plan as "a strong request that allows us to keep up the pace of environmental protections" and said the cuts were part of the administration's larger deficit-cutting plan. The White House is facing a record federal budget deficit.

Most of the EPA cut proposed for 2006 is from a reduction in funding for a revolving fund that states use to upgrade sewage and septic systems, and storm-water run-off projects. Funding for the fund fell $361 million, or 33 percent, in the Bush administration budget proposal.

Environmental groups say cities need the loans and grants to replace and upgrade aging sewage systems, some of which are over a century old.

"This year's cuts are really bad for clean water," said Rob Perks at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But the lower request actually offsets higher funds appropriated by Congress in 2004 and 2005, which will maintain the total commitment to the program of $6.8 billion through 2011, an EPA spokeswoman said. "Federal funding of this program was never intended to be permanent," she said.

The decision to cut the state water program was "one of savings and making some tough choices," Johnson said.

The administration's budget plan would hold steady a separate $850 million state fund for clean drinking water.

The EPA budget also would increase by $47 million funding to clean up 600 toxic "brownfield" sites and add $28 million to remove toxic sediments from the Great Lakes.

Money for Superfund -- an industry program to clean up toxic waste sites -- would rise slightly to $1.28 billion.

Congress will debate and revise the White House budget proposal over the next few months before finalizing a government spending plan for fiscal 2006, which begins on Oct. 1.

[SierraWasp]

Hey! I'm finally startin ta warm up to this President more an more!!!

[Pointblank]

in Mississippi, timber is a huge industry, and the regrowth, whether natural or planted, means times of plenty for the animals that inhabit the area. Great amounts of food, and safe cover.
What really hacks me off, is outside of the redwood forests and a few NWR's, there is no pristine forests in this country, most of us have never seen a tree that the native Indians sought shelter under 500 years ago. So why should I care about a damn rainforest in Nicaragua. So, a South American cocksukatoo may not adapt to the altered environment and become extinct. Who can I complain to about the extinction of the dinosaurs?
Someone said, "life happens", and that is true of this earth. I look out over the Mississippi delta and wonder what it looked like 500 years ago, It must have been a sight to see...
But today the regrowth of the wetlands here is breathtaking.
The point of my babble is that we are arrogant in believing we could destroy this Earth, we can altar it but it will heal or adapt to our consumptions and still be here long after we are gone. So take a few pictures and chop it down, and the cocksukatoo will be fat and happy, or will no longer startle us when we walk through the rain regrowth.

[New Orleans Slim]

"Well, it ain't the EPA you're lookin' for, babe. This move by GWB is a first step in cleaning up the pollution of junk science."

Actually, the first piece of litigation I ever did as a first year associate involved a CERCLA claim brought by the EPA. These guys bring the A-game, not "junk science." They earned my respect. EPA helped us structure a settlement that was completely fair. I wouldn't have thought it would work out that way, but there you go.

Overall, I like the new budget. I was really disliking Bush for awhile because of the profligate spending. But it looks like he is starting to rein in some of this nonsense.

[Republican Wildcat]

Amazingly they'll take the entire property, not just the section that contains the swamp.

[Grampa Dave]

This is the way to bleed these worthless departments to their demise.

[Grampa Dave]

Wait until Willie finds out what GW will do to Amtrac with his budget.

[SierraWasp]

I know! I'm standing on one foot, then the other, waiting for that mushroom cloud to replace that cloud of doom and gloom that hangs over every Willie reply on FR!!!

[A Jovial Cad]

Before the "Clean Air Act" of 1990, it never cost me more than $30 to have my vehicles A/C's serviced--and the refrigerant they used was much more efficient (i.e., colder). That's with the labor costs included.

Since then I've never paid less then about $150--and the last time I had it done it cost me more than that. Something's wrong with that picture. The "Clean Air Act" is a sham to drive up the costs of keeping cool so some enviro-weenie can preen, IMO.

[SAJ]

You're entirely accurate, of course, but the result you want will only occur simultaneously with the Stanley Cup Finals being played with Satan as the referee.

You've likely figured it out, but, if not, energy producers are quite in bed w/the enviro-whacko types. Prohibition of exploitation and restriction upon production of energy resources works to ExxonMobil's advantage just as well as it does to the Sierra Club goofballs.

[sergeantdave]

Any so-called libertarian that advocates unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats writing law is no libertarian. Let me help you out a bit - unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats writing law to control the citizenry is, by definition, a dictatorship.

Nice try, Slim.

[New Orleans Slim]

"Before the "Clean Air Act" of 1990, it never cost me more than $30 to have my vehicles A/C's serviced--and the refrigerant they used was much more efficient (i.e., colder). That's with the labor costs included.

Since then I've never paid less then about $150"

That's why its called an externality. The actual cost in environmental terms is not reflected in the price. Efficient markets require that externalities are eliminated.
The price went up that much most likely because you were doing $130 worth of evironmental damage prior to the act that you weren't paying for. Since you weren't paying the full cost, your market preference for AC service was the result of a market inefficiency.

Think of it like this, a coal-fired power plant uses a variety of inputs like coal to make an output (i.e. electricity). If you have ever seen an operational coal plant, you will notice alot of smoke belching out of a tall smokestack. Now power plants don't emit smoke for the hell of it. They need to use an airstream to move the emissions out of the plant. Thus the airstream being used is almost as vital to plant operation as the coal - the airstream is also an input.

Most inputs have to be paid for. Electricity would be alot cheaper for instance, if the plant management stole the coal to run the plant. But that would be stealing - which would adversely effect the market for coal. Well the air used to move the emissions away from the plant isn't cost free either. Those emissions can have an ill effect on health, property, etc. These costs are not reflected in the electricity bill because the air is difficult to propertize. Thus we have the clean air act to make sure the actual cost of all of the plant inputs are reflected in the cost of the output product. This assures that the full cost is borne by those involved in the transaction - i.e. buying electricity.

Smae thing with your AC service. The CAA makes sure the marketplace runs efficiently.

[New Orleans Slim]

"Any so-called libertarian that advocates unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats writing law is no libertarian. Let me help you out a bit - unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats writing law to control the citizenry is, by definition, a dictatorship."

Perhaps we should elect FBI agents, military personnel, CIA agents, and the President's administrative assistant. Those guys are all bureacrats (just with more glamorous jobs than the jokers at the DMV)? The EPA, like all agencies is accountable through our elected offcials.

Come to think about it, I'm not all that fond of elected officials who in some ways are only accountable to the mob that voted them in. Somehow, I wouldn't have any fondness for Communists even if they were elected into office.

As for being a libertarian, that means believing in markets and the liberty of people to participate in markets. But given that markets work best when there are no externalities, I actually want the government to internalize these to transactions. You know, things like courts where I can get a contract enforced, police to arrest con-men and other fraudsters. It's economics 101 - crack a book and check it out.

You've confused libertarianism with anarchy.

[dufekin]

I believe that it's not the Clean Air Act of 1990 but the Montreal Protocol of 1988 (an international treaty regulating chlorofluorocarbons...well, not in Mexico or China or...) at issue with your automobile air conditioner. And inflation--don't forget that!

[A Jovial Cad]

Nice try--but I happen to know better. The price went up because the handling, use, and disposal of R-12 became a highly regulated matter, and that super efficient refrigerant is now all but banned. All based upon an unproven theory that it somehow harmed the ozone layer. Further, chemical companies were forced to come up with R-12 substitutes in a phase-in, and those substitutes, besides being far less efficient, are also quite costly.

"The CAA makes sure the marketplace runs efficiently"

Now that's rich, indeed: an unwarranted government intrusion into the marketplace is touted as making it work more "efficiently."

Note to New Orleans: most conservatives I know believe that government regulation of the marketplace should be based upon manifest necessity, not the sky is falling! environmentalist hysteria.

[sergeantdave]

Pretending that bureaucrats are not an external force on free markets won't get you to first base in understanding Econ 101. And to expect politicians, who have granted law-making powers to bureaucrats, to control bureaucrats is naive.

You're also confusing the libertarian concept of enforcing decisions through common law in the courts with bureaucrats writing and enforcing law. One is government dominated control of people by unelected bureaucrats. This is bad for self-government. The other - using common law through the courts - is people controlling their lives via self rule, a well known tenet embraced by both conservatives and libertarians. This is good and what the founders had in mind when forming a republic system.

If you're going to embrace a libertarian viewpoint, I'd recommend a trip over to CATO to learn about the libertarian view of markets, the harmful effect of a bureaucracy on markets and free market solutions.

Start with Jerry Taylor over at CATO.

[New Orleans Slim]

"Note to New Orleans: most conservatives I know believe that government regulation of the marketplace should be based upon manifest necessity, not the sky is falling! environmentalist hysteria."

What do you know about the Clean Air Act exactly? I've litgated it on the corporate side. If you are looking for environmental hysteria I'd recommend discussing a different law, like the Endnagered Species Act.

Or are you suggesting that there are no environmental externatlities? Because internalizing externalities is necessary for any market to run properly. But I guess complaining about laws is easier than actually looking at what a specific law does.

[New Orleans Slim]

"Pretending that bureaucrats are not an external force on free markets won't get you to first base in understanding Econ 101."

Free markets require enforcement mechanisms. Since the government has a monopoly on pro-active use of force, those enforcement mechanisms must be governmental (that's elementary Rand or Nozick). So unless you want to vote for every single cop, court clerk, admin assistant, etc. then you are going to have enforcement by bureacrats. But then again, I said this above and you have not addressed it. Are you going to argue or just carp?

"The other - using common law through the courts - is people controlling their lives via self rule, a well known tenet embraced by both conservatives and libertarians."

Now I know you aren't serious. Common law? Common law is judge-made law. In the federal courts and about half the states, judges are unelected officials. Isn't this the very sort of thing you were complaining about earlier? You know, unelected officials making rules. Next time you come to argue with me, know what you are talking about.

The Clean Air Act is a statute. Statutory law is law passed by elected officials. Do you know what the CAA empowers the EPA to do to enforce it? That's right, the EPA has to go to court for the CAA to be enforced. The EPA cannot enforce the CAA on its own. Guess you didn't know that either.

If you care to respond further, please actually address these points. Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss.

[dfwgator]

You can bet every piece of environmental legislation means money in somebody's pocket, usually the one's who does the best lobbying job.

[drc43]

Get rid of the EPA mandated customized fuels. Seems like they have a different one for almost every city.

[sergeantdave]

You're right. You know nothing about common law. You know nothing about libertarianism. You know nothing of self-rule. And you support the fascist bureaucratic state. We have nothing to discuss. Try the Sierra Club chat room where you'll find allies.