The key is to make EPA more effective and not just throwing money at it. Prez Bush's plan sounds good to me. Fund necessary projects such as clean drinking water, toxic and waste cleanup, etc., and eliminate unnecessary ones that are waste of resources and tax money.
"eliminate unnecessary ones that are waste of resources and tax money."
Start with the unconstitutional taking of private property without due process.
We need a constitutional amendment that swamps are to be called "swamps" and not "wetlands," jungles are to be called "jungles" and not "rainforests," and barking moonbat eco-whackos from Planet Stalin are to be called "barking moonbat eco-whackos from Planet Stalin" and not "environmentalists."
I'm an environmental scientist and run my own consulting company (since 1991). This is a good idea and President Bush has real guts for even proposing a cut in the EPA budget.
Environmental quality would improve if the EPA budget were cut by 1/3. Most people would not believe what the EPA is involved with these days. Yes, they have their own police force (more like a commando unit). The EPA throws money at the UN and the third world like it was going out of style. The Environmental Justice program is a complete political sham. The agency bureaucracy is enormously bloated and wasteful.
The EPA exceeded congressional authority long ago and needs to be reigned in, for the sake of our environment as well as the budget. It was a regulation factory before President Bush, terribly infected with environmental activism from the Clinton era: a place for watermelons to grow (green on the outside and red inside).
The NRDC and EDF literally wrote government policy and regulations for years. Their lawyers were inside the agency working every day for the activist organizations. The EPA needs a good scrubbin' and this is an excellent start.
Bush deserves high cudos for this move. I am in awe of his courage.
This position presumes that it is not in a person's or corporation's best interests to maintain the value of their property. Thus, government control is required to protect society.
The presumption, however, is a false premise. Almost invariably, it is in the best interests of a property-owner to maintain his property in an environmentally friendly fashion. To do otherwise would simply be foolish. One doesn't go into business in order to destroy the value of one's assets.
Ask any farmer, for example. More often, it is EPA policies that are destroying the value of the property -- be it through the Endangered Species Program or Wetlands Protection.
As a people, economy and nation, we'd be better off without the EPA. Hell, the environment would be better off without the EPA. We can't do that overnight, of course. But reducing funding is a damn good start...