I’m not even going to bother wasting my time with someone who has their mind made up. If you really wanted to know, you would have simply gone looking for info on your own.
A good search term would be “Environmental Solutions Agency”
Being a little bit progressive is like being a little bit pregnant.
A good search term would be “Environmental Solutions Agency”
Being a little bit progressive is like being a little bit pregnant.
Since I consider myself ultra conservative, your response is incongruos.
Are you contending that the Federal Government has no role in environmental protection? If so I would love to hear your reasoning? There is a full body of laws and regulations regarding environmental protection. Are you advocating abolishing all of them? Or alternatively freezing them as is? If neither of these, what mechanism do you propose for eliminating costly, ill advised, restrictive and needless regulations?
Aside from presenting an inaccurate and needlessly denigrating attitude I thank you for actually providing the answer to my question. Where upon I did search "Environmental Solutions Agency." The available information was limited, however it did include quotes from Newt.
Regarding the EPA,
"What you have is a very expensive bureaucracy that across the board makes it harder to solve problems, slows down the development of new innovations."
He further commented that:
"We need to have an agency that is first of all limited, but cooperates with the 50 states."
Unless you advocate a total Laissez-faire approach to protecting the environment, what is your problem with an agency that is limited and cooperates with the states? There were additional quotes from his spokeperson indicating the agency should cooperate with business in identify solutions to environmental issues. Is that a problem?
If my mind were already made up, I would not take the time to compose rational questions. You have an opportunity to affect my opinion by providing rational responses.