Tags
I initiated a conversation yesterday with an old high school chum with whom I have maintained contact. We were pretty god friends in those days, and I was fully aware of her liberal leaning. I approached her honestly, asking for a discussion of the issues our nation faces. I remain fully convinced that there are more issues we agree on than those we disagree on as Americans. To her mind, Obama is too conservative, yet as we conversed there was, in fact, much agreement until we got to the EPA. Her contention is that Congress is in bed with Wall Street – for the most part, I agree. She believes the EPA to be the voice of the consumer. I do not. I’m sure as this conversation continues, we will get to the meat of the issues. The article below is my answer to her affection for the EPA!
A dust storm rolls through the Ahwatukee and south Phoenix area, Monday evening, July 18, 2011. The dust wall was about 3,000 feet (900 meters) high and created winds of 25 to 30 mph (40 to 48 kph), with gusts of up to 40 mph (64 kph), said Austin Jamison, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service. (AP Photo/The Arizona Republic, Nick Oza) MARICOPA COUNTY
Congressman Barton’s opening statement ticked off the following list of problems he had with the EPA, including agency:
- Failure to comply with Obama Executive Order 13563 requiring regulations that promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and jobs with the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends, taking “into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative” (quoting from the Executive order);
- Promulgation of power plant regulations that have driven energy costs higher without reasonable justification;
- Failure to Congressional criticism of regulatory actions, including requests for public health and economic research data and justifications of policy decisions;
- Disregard of blatant conflicts of interest among its science advisers who receive tens of millions of dollars in research grants from the agency wile also posturing as independent reviewers of agency science;
- Failure to require that its sponsored researchers follow established rules of public health research with respect to toxicology and epidemiology;
- Inappropriate reliance on the precautionary principle;
- Circumvention of Congressional oversight; and
- Grant-giving to advocacy groups that then enter into collusive lawsuits and aggressive regulatory requests that promote the agency’s agenda and expand its regulatory and political power.
As Congressman Barton pointed out, “I believe that the American public and taxpayers should not be paying for an agency that manipulates data and funds researchers in the form of exterior grants, who in turn serve on the internal committees within the EPA to create policy and work in an oversight capacity. This is an incredible conflict of interest to the American public.” ………. READ MORE HERE
blogsense-by-barb 
Dear barbara: Oregon is quite progressive and we are going to need to do something now to clean up the messs that we created. I think men did most of the damage. Take care. Marc Marrs
Thanks for stopping by, Marc Marrs and leaving a comment! I don’t disagree with that statement. The question remains: How much can we reasonably expect to change, and how to regulate without killing industry & manufacturing. The EPA has grown to gargantuan proportions. It should simply be an “oversight” board, holding corporate America’s feet to the fire. There is also the question of the real damage and if our “recycling” (for example) can really affect a positive difference. It seems a matter of proportion to me. HOW MUCH of our financial resources (since we’re broke!) should go toward “green” industry – better managed than Solyndra! Do you see my perception? One issue builds off the next, and until the economy & debt are dealt with, everything will continue to crumble!
Here is a little known fact. According to the Scientific Method, there needs to be control studies done on global warming. There are none, the federal government has funded billions of dollars to “prove” global warming with not one cent going to independent research and fact checking bogus claims.
John Wilder
True enough!