Republicans Hate Their Grandchildren
Eleven days ago, I was relieved that the Administration stood firm on anti-EPA riders, but asked, “what will the level of EPA funding be? If Congress and the White House agree to serious cuts that starve the agency of necessary personnel, then the absence of a rider is a Pyrrhic victory.”
Well, now we know the answer:
One of the hardest hit institutions is the Environmental Protection Agency, whose power Republicans have sought to curtail in recent years through a variety of legislative means. The agency will receive $1.6 billion less in funding than current levels, a 16 percent drop, including a $49 million reduction in climate change programs and $149 million cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In a press release, Senate Appropriation Committee Democrats noted that the EPA cuts, while tough, were nearly $1.6 billion less than Republicans’ original proposal. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also saw a $142 million reduction in funding and is prohibited from creating a Climate Service.
In addition to programs protecting the environment, programs aimed at boosting energy efficiency for power plants and transportation also were major targets. Energy efficiency and renewable energy were cut by $438 million while fossil energy R&D was reduced by $226 million and nuclear energy funding was cut by $56 million. Funding for high speed rail, all $2.9 billion of it, was zeroed out entirely.
These all seem designed to reduce action on climate as much as possible. It’s not about the money — these are paltry sums in the context of the federal budget, and the Defense Department got a $5 billion increase. This is just trying to melt the planet.
In a previous post, I pointed to a talk by Republican Congressmember Bob Inglis, who lost his seat to a Tea Party extremist and spoke here at UCLAW a couple of weeks ago. Inglis quoted the Australian Foreign Minister, who noted that our grandchildren will know in the future what we did, and that everything we do now is “on the record.”
Kids, your grandparents didn’t give a goddamn about you. If they were Republicans.
Reader Comments
8 Replies to “Republicans Hate Their Grandchildren”
Comments are closed.
About Jonathan
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic – Land Use, the Environment and Loc…
READ more
What do you call a $1.6B cut in the EPA? A good start.
I wonder if UCLA and Berkeley get any federal funds? With leftist blogs like this they clearly political organizations, not educational.
Dear Jonathan,
Calm down. We love our grandchildren and we want the EPA to back away from its abusive and unconstitutional regulatory policies and practices. Surely we can all agree that the EPA is once place were we can safely reduce the budget without hurting anyone except maybe a few government employees and contractors.
The sea level is not actually going to rise and drown New York City, and there will still be enough polar bears and rain forests. Spring is here and nature blooms with new life and natural beauty all over America. Spring time is the best time to cut the budget for EPA.
Let us rejoice and be merry and share this day with our grandchildren and with children everywhere, and teach them that they do not have to live in fear of the EPA. What a beautiful day. Now there is hope. Excuse me while I say the Pledge of Allegiance and have a cup of tea.
If you need confirmation that this rabid budget cutting is more about dismantling parts of government the Right doesn’t like than fiscal responsibility–and you probably don’t–the comments above are a decent illustration.
Not sure about Gordon’s syntax, and I can only guess about his math. Just last December, Obama joined Republicans to approve nearly $900 billion dollars in spending and tax cuts. Now the Republicans want it all back–from the EPA and Planned Parenthood. The logic of the Queen of Hearts.
You are right to bring up defense, Jonathan. Anyone who cares about the budget AND defense should really be concerned about cancerous excess spending for the Pentagon. As Winslow Wheeler said today on Which Way LA, the US is replacing things like the $50 million dollar F-16 with the $350 million dollar F-22 with the inevitable consequence–because procurements can’t keep up with costs–of a smaller force with older planes. Two trillion dollars in increased defense spending since 2000 and much of the force is 1/3 smaller.
It’s not the size of the cuts. They’re more political than fiscal; thirty-eight billion won’t make much difference to the economy or the budget. (Right now, real cuts,steep cuts,could stall the economy–look at the UK.) It’s the way the cuts hit certain programs hard but leave others fully funded. Republicans even managed to cut Ron Wyden’s health insurance exchanges–a program that would allow employees to take the money employers spend on health care and shop for insurance. The idea is that this would help create a viable insurance market for individuals. I mean really, if vouchers are good for school choice, why aren’t they good for health care?
Government was already paying for 50% of all health care, costs are approaching 20% of GPD and, for most Americans, all of the income gains (and then some) of the last decade were eaten up by rising health care costs, but it wasn’t till Obama tried to do something about it that anyone got angry.
If we just drill more, drive more, build coal plants, fund some nuclear plants, subsidize a few million more acres of corn for ethanol production, and get the EPA off our backs it will all be OK. The insanity is just beginning.
Do you know how soon will it be before we are fully effected by the 7 meter sea level rise caused by the melting of the Greenland ice cap then?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Dear bqrq,
The EPA does not utilize unconstitutional regulatory policies and practices, unless you are above the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit.
The EPA was ordered to regulate greenhouse gases by the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court in the 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA. The Clean Air Act is a federal law, and like all other federal laws, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what it says, what it means, and whether it’s constitutional.
On June 29, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in GE v. Jackson, a case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) issued by the EPA under CERCLA. The Court upheld the constitutionality of UAOs.
Your charge of “unconstitutionality” just doesn’t hold up.
Roger,
Please go to this website for information regarding projected sea level rise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
scallery,
I know the answer to my question perfectly well thank you and can point you to the correct authority to support the answer. The correct authority is NOT skepticalscience.com.
My question is a small attempt to test your own understanding of AGW issues seeing as you feel qualified to argue in support so authoritively.
In the blogosphere I find many bloggers who argue like you but turn out to have very little understanding of the things they are supporting.
Please answer the question so I can put my mind at rest with regard to you, and I hope Jonathan will also answer so I can put my mind at rest with regards to his blog.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Well you obviously don’t know the official answer to my question.
The answer lies in the IPCC reports and the answer is more than 2,000 years.
Therefore its quite ok to follow Al Gore’s example and invest in a water front home.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com