English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Enforcement Undercut Eric Schaeffer, EPA's Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement (a 12-year veteran who has received awards for his work quality), recently resigned in protest saying he was "tired of fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the
rules that we are trying to enforce." He said energy industry lobbyists were helping to write proposals to weaken air-pollution regulations for older coal power plants. The Bush Administration's stance has interfered in lawsuit settlement negotiations with 8 major power utilities. The industries hope to get a better deal from Bush, so negotiations have stalled.

Schaeffer said, "The big problem is the Dept. of Energy's been put in the front seat on these decisions. Their client is the power industry and our perspective is this is an environmental enforcement matter and I don't think they have a place in those negotiations, but there they are." The Cheney energy task force directed EPA to review whether the rule substantially impeded power generation and to recommend any reforms.

This year, Bush's proposed budget would cut EPA inspection staff by 18 percent next year, and civil enforcement staff will decline 11% over 2001 levels. Republican Senator James Inhofe said "the White House is addressing an overzealous agency whose strict enforcement of air pollution rules has sometimes done more harm than good." He supported claims by the coal-fired electricity industry that "stringent modernization rules are actually discouraging plant owners from upgrading pollution controls." (Utilities have benefited for years from loopholes which "grandfather" old plants like the Pulliam on the Fox River. If they think this is a problem, why don't they eliminate the loophole instead of blocking EPA enforcement?)

2006-10-05 12:35:45 · 11 answers · asked by dstr 6 in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

oh no you don't, shut up dummy. republicans use 28% more welfare money than deomocratic voters, i just read this in some magezine like a month ago. further republicans hate paying taxes yet expect more services.

and there in lies your answer, asker. they are closed minded, expectant and unrealistic, they don't see themselves as world citizens but rather as americans and a arrogent about. Nothing is their problem. exept immigation and killing other people from other countries

2006-10-05 12:44:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

They are not destroying it. If you would have read the President position you would have seen that he has not stopped it, but has slowed it down some. The costs to get to the levels in that short of time would have been a astronomical high energy bills to the elderly and the poor. Slowing the program allows more time to make it more cost effective for those that really need the break. And since when is reducing government waste a bad thing. I'm sure if we looked really hard we could get rid of a ton dead weight in government jobs.

2006-10-05 12:43:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

No one seems to get it anymore that the Republican party is the party of the elite not the middle-class. They think that their anti-abortion stand makes them the moral right.
What's the term...oh yes...a wolf in sheep's clothing.
How moral is it to consume without regard to the future. How moral is it to accumulate wealth at the expense of the middle-class. At least the extreme left wants to take your money and return it in government services. Conservatives want to take middle-class money and keep it for themselves.
The moderate middle-class is completely unpresented in this liberal/conservative congress. THis has happened from people basing their votes on moral issues rather than focused issues like the economy and the environment.

2006-10-05 12:48:12 · answer #3 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1 0

Ive noticed that the "blue" states, california in particular, have major pollution problems. instead of getting all crybaby about it, why dont you do something yourself to stop pollution. but you won't. youll get in your huge SUV, go fill it up with gasoline, drive down to the starbucks, get a fancy caffinated thing, drink it, and throw the cup on the ground.

2006-10-05 12:58:15 · answer #4 · answered by Stand-up Philosopher 5 · 0 1

it's the same Republican strategy... if you can get a dollar tomorrow by doing something... then do it... D*mn the consequences...

and if you don't support our policies.. .then your clearly a communist who hates the economy...

the farthest Republicans think into the future is a long-term profit forecast... and if they aren't talking about profit, then most aren't thinking about anything beyond tomorrow...

Of course this isn't every Republican... just every Republican in leadership positions...

2006-10-05 12:42:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

The Epa is essential to our nations enviroment. They created many safeguards people take for granted.

Republicans don't believe pollution is important, thus can careless about the EPA.

2006-10-05 12:41:06 · answer #6 · answered by Villain 6 · 3 2

Obviously they don't believe in God. Fortunately God sees and knows all. I hope Mr. Foley is listening.

2006-10-05 12:39:18 · answer #7 · answered by CC in carolina 1 · 3 1

Sounds like you have an agenda that needs funding

2006-10-05 12:41:42 · answer #8 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0 2

Republicans want to please their business partners in the expense of the public who absorbs the effects of pollution.

2006-10-05 12:40:40 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 3 1

because they have filthy minds

2006-10-05 12:52:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers