This is exactly why Trump should cut EPA by 50% and send responsibilities to states

[WVPATX]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/17/if-trump-visits-epa-sources-say-employees-wont-even-show-up/

The EPA is apparently full of ideologues. Time to drain the swamp. If they won't even show up to meet their new boss and POTUS, they can't possibly be trusted to be factual with their research and their rules and regulations. Science and research knows no ideology.

 

[moe]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/17/if-trump-visits-epa-sources-say-employees-wont-even-show-up/

The EPA is apparently full of ideologues. Time to drain the swamp. If they won't even show up to meet their new boss and POTUS, they can't possibly be trusted to be factual with their research and their rules and regulations. Science and research knows no ideology.

lol Would you get a warm fuzzy feeling for someone who just wants to fire you and gut the regs that you've worked years or decades to uphold? Pretty stupid link/source though, wait until it happens and then respond to it. Most states are administering federal environmental programs anyways but whatever extra responsibilities that get sent to the states would need to be accompanied by appropriate associated funding.

 

[WVPATX]

lol Would you get a warm fuzzy feeling for someone who just wants to fire you and gut the regs that you've worked years or decades to uphold? Pretty stupid link/source though, wait until it happens and then respond to it. Most states are administering federal environmental programs anyways but whatever extra responsibilities that get sent to the states would need to be accompanied by appropriate associated funding.

No, I would gut the agency and save the funds. The states can handle their own EPA business.

These people work for the government. Administrations change all the time. If they can't handle those changes, they have not shown all the skills required of their job. Pretty simple.

 

[TarHeelEer]

lol Would you get a warm fuzzy feeling for someone who just wants to fire you and gut the regs that you've worked years or decades to uphold? Pretty stupid link/source though, wait until it happens and then respond to it. Most states are administering federal environmental programs anyways but whatever extra responsibilities that get sent to the states would need to be accompanied by appropriate associated funding.

They aren't there to defend the regulations they've created. They're there to serve the president, who serves the people. They have no ownership in anything they've worked on in the past. I see you've spent too much time in government already.

 

[moe]

No, I would gut the agency and save the funds. The states can handle their own EPA business.

These people work for the government. Administrations change all the time. If they can't handle those changes, they have not shown all the skills required of their job. Pretty simple.

I'm glad that you think unfunded mandates are a good thing, state legislators would disagree with you. If he's not there to fire half the building then I'm sure that his meeting will go well.

 

[WVPATX]

I'm glad that you think unfunded mandates are a good thing, state legislators would disagree with you. If he's not there to fire half the building then I'm sure that his meeting will go well.

I'm not giving them more work. I am simply cutting the massive responsibilities of the EPA. It is a bloated bureaucracy that is out of control. 50% cut sounds about right.

 

[moe]

They aren't there to defend the regulations they've created. They're there to serve the president, who serves the people. They have no ownership in anything they've worked on in the past. I see you've spent too much time in government already.

Defending regulations? Ownership? You're as bad as patx for making stuff up. You and little Donnie have a lot to learn.

 

[moe]

I'm not giving them more work. I am simply cutting the massive responsibilities of the EPA. It is a bloated bureaucracy that is out of control. 50% cut sounds about right.

If you tell a state to administer a federal program that they've not done before, then they'll need personnel, space in buildings, vehicles, etc. Troll on oh clueless one.

 

[WVPATX]

If you tell a state to administer a federal program that they've not done before, then they'll need personnel, space in buildings, vehicles, etc. Troll on oh clueless one.

No, gut the regs. Cut down on the work. Cut the workforce. Give the states more leeway to run as they see fit.

 

[moe]

No, gut the regs. Cut down on the work. Cut the workforce. Give the states more leeway to run as they see fit.

I'll make a patx troll post as follows. So why do you hate Americans? why don't you want them to have clean air and water? why do you hate the environment? When the next human health related environmental disaster comes, every swinging Richard will be hollering for someone to do something and how did we let this happen and if you and your ilk have their way, nothing will get done to recover or prevent it in the future.

 

[TarHeelEer]

the regs that you've worked years or decades to uphold?

Defending regulations? Ownership? You're as bad as patx for making stuff up. You and little Donnie have a lot to learn.

I've worked on things in the past for other people that I took pride in, also. They turned around and trashed them a year later. It's not my place to think that just because I work on or uphold things, that they are mine.

 

[WVPATX]

I'll make a patx troll post as follows. So why do you hate Americans? why don't you want them to have clean air and water? why do you hate the environment? When the next human health related environmental disaster comes, every swinging Richard will be hollering for someone to do something and how did we let this happen and if you and your ilk have their way, nothing will get done to recover or prevent it in the future.

Very poor argument and weak rationale. I think we can have both clean air and clean water with the EPA downsized by 50%. It's not an either or situation. The EPA is extraordinarily bloated. Cut needless regulations. Cut down the amount of work performed by EPA. Cut EPA workforce. Simple.

 

[moe]

I've worked on things in the past for other people that I took pride in, also. They turned around and trashed them a year later. It's not my place to think that just because I work on or uphold things, that they are mine.

That's nice, got it.

 

[moe]

The EPA is extraordinarily bloated.

Back that up, thanks.

 

[WVPATX]

Back that up, thanks.

Back up that they aren't bloated. They hide emails. They use fake alias accounts to avoid FOIA. They won't comply with Congressional subpoenas. The number of regs they put out is astronomical. The supposed cost/benefit analysis is deeply flawed and partisan. Complete overhaul needed. EPA regs now pushed past $1T in costs.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/1...illion-in-costs-and-thousands-per-individual/

 

[TarHeelEer]

That's nice, got it.

No you don't, nor do employees at EPA, but that's ok.

 

[moe]

Back up that they aren't bloated. They hide emails. They use fake alias accounts to avoid FOIA. They won't comply with Congressional subpoenas. The number of regs they put out is astronomical. The supposed cost/benefit analysis is deeply flawed and partisan. Complete overhaul needed.

bloat·ed
ˈblōdəd/
adjective
adjective: bloated
(of part of the body) swollen with fluid or gas.
"he had a bloated, unshaven face"
synonyms: swollen, distended, tumefied, bulging, inflated, enlarged, expanded, dilated, puffy, puffed (up)
"bloated bellies"

• excessive in size or amount.
  "the company trimmed its bloated labor force"
• (of a person) excessively wealthy and pampered.
  "the bloated captains of industry"

You call the agency bloated but then start talking about hiding emails and using aliases and dodging subpoenas, etc. I thought you were going to back up your bloated comment with employee headcounts on specific environmental programs or how they spent too much cleaning up the Superfund site that's nowhere near your gated community. It's truly obvious that you just don't like the people that work there nor understand their mission. What is this astronomical number of regulations that you speak of? Give me some numbers/time basis or per federal law or however someone would defend that assertion. I admit that I was surprised to learn in graduate school that for the most part, Congress was to give no consideration for what it would cost to implement the major environmental law that was under consideration so blame Congress not the USEPA for the creation, administration and oversight of the major environmental laws/programs. You do know that the current size of the federal workforce is about what it was in the 1960's? so there goes your bloated comment at least for the number of employees aspect. Just say there's a few regs that you don't like and leave it at that and spare us all the nonsense.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...ables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

 

[WVPATX]

bloat·ed
ˈblōdəd/
adjective
adjective: bloated
(of part of the body) swollen with fluid or gas.
"he had a bloated, unshaven face"
synonyms: swollen, distended, tumefied, bulging, inflated, enlarged, expanded, dilated, puffy, puffed (up)
"bloated bellies"

• excessive in size or amount.
  "the company trimmed its bloated labor force"
• (of a person) excessively wealthy and pampered.
  "the bloated captains of industry"

You call the agency bloated but then start talking about hiding emails and using aliases and dodging subpoenas, etc. I thought you were going to back up your bloated comment with employee headcounts on specific environmental programs or how they spent too much cleaning up the Superfund site that's nowhere near your gated community. It's truly obvious that you just don't like the people that work there nor understand their mission. What is this astronomical number of regulations that you speak of? Give me some numbers/time basis or per federal law or however someone would defend that assertion. I admit that I was surprised to learn in graduate school that for the most part, Congress was to give no consideration for what it would cost to implement the major environmental law that was under consideration so blame Congress not the USEPA for the creation, administration and oversight of the major environmental laws/programs. You do know that the current size of the federal workforce is about what it was in the 1960's? so there goes your bloated comment at least for the number of employees aspect. Just say there's a few regs that you don't like and leave it at that and spare us all the nonsense.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...ables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

Information is in the article. Enormous costs, huge number of new regs under Obama. Very definition of bloat. BTW, I cited the other items to demonstrate not just bloat, but corruption.

https://www.atr.org/nearly-4000-epa-regulations-issued-under-president-obama

 

[dave]

Defending regulations? Ownership? You're as bad as patx for making stuff up. You and little Donnie have a lot to learn.

This is an ironic post.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

https://publicaccess.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212071617-How-many-people-work-for-the-EPA-

EPA's Budget and Spending
View EPA expenditures on USA Spending.Gov.

Budget Resource Use

• Financial and performance reports: see how EPA managed its budget resources and allocated resources among programs.
• Historical budget documents: view prior year proposed budgets and congressional justification documents.
• Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds Manual: defines EPA's policies, and procedures to control appropriated funds based on federal legal and administrative requirements.
• Federal Program Inventory: describes each of EPA's programs and how they support the agency's mission.

Fiscal Year..... Enacted Budget..........Workforce
FY 2016.......... $8,139,887,000........... 15,376
FY 2015.......... $8,139,887,000........... 14,725
FY 2014.......... $8,200,000,000........... 15,408
FY 2013.......... $7,901,104,000........... 15,913
FY 2012.......... $8,449,385,000 ...........17,106
FY 2011...........$8,682,117,000.............17,359
FY 2010...........$10,297,864,000...........17,278
FY 2009...........$7,643,674,000.............17,049
FY 2008...........$7,472,324,000.............16,916
FY 2007...........$7,725,130,000.............17,072
FY 2006...........$7,617,416,000.............17,355
FY 2005...........$8,023,483,000.............17,495
FY 2004...........$8,365,420,000.............17,611
FY 2003...........$8,078,703,000.............17,741
FY 2002...........$8,078,813,000.............17,590
FY 2001...........$7,832,211,000.............17,558
FY 2000...........$7,562,811,000.............17,726
FY 1999...........$7,590,352,000.............18,110
FY 1998...........$7,363,046,000.............17,739
FY 1997...........$6,799,393,000.............17,152
FY 1996...........$6,522,953,000.............17,082
FY 1995...........$7,240,887,000.............17,508
FY 1994...........$6,658,927,000.............17,106
FY 1993...........$6,892,424,000.............17,280
FY 1992...........$6,668,853,000.............17,010
FY 1991...........$6,094,287,000.............16,415
FY 1990...........$5,461,808,000.............16,318
FY 1989...........$5,155,125,000.............14,370
FY 1988...........$5,027,442,000.............14,442
FY 1987...........$5,364,092,000.............13,442
FY 1986...........$3,663,841,000.............12,892
FY 1985...........$4,353,655,000.............12,410
FY 1984...........$4,067,000,000.............11,420
FY 1983...........$3,688,688,000.............10,832
FY 1982...........$3,676,013,000.............11,402


a 50% reduction is still TOO MANY EMPLOYEES ... 7,500/50 = 150 per state

a 75% reduction would be ... 4000/50 = 80 per state ... still too many...

a 90% reduction would be ... 1539/50 ~ 31 per state... that's a good number...

 

[WVPATX]

https://publicaccess.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212071617-How-many-people-work-for-the-EPA-

EPA's Budget and Spending
View EPA expenditures on USA Spending.Gov.

Budget Resource Use

• Financial and performance reports: see how EPA managed its budget resources and allocated resources among programs.
• Historical budget documents: view prior year proposed budgets and congressional justification documents.
• Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds Manual: defines EPA's policies, and procedures to control appropriated funds based on federal legal and administrative requirements.
• Federal Program Inventory: describes each of EPA's programs and how they support the agency's mission.

Fiscal Year..... Enacted Budget..........Workforce
FY 2016.......... $8,139,887,000........... 15,376
FY 2015.......... $8,139,887,000........... 14,725
FY 2014.......... $8,200,000,000........... 15,408
FY 2013.......... $7,901,104,000........... 15,913
FY 2012.......... $8,449,385,000 ...........17,106
FY 2011...........$8,682,117,000.............17,359
FY 2010...........$10,297,864,000...........17,278
FY 2009...........$7,643,674,000.............17,049
FY 2008...........$7,472,324,000.............16,916
FY 2007...........$7,725,130,000.............17,072
FY 2006...........$7,617,416,000.............17,355
FY 2005...........$8,023,483,000.............17,495
FY 2004...........$8,365,420,000.............17,611
FY 2003...........$8,078,703,000.............17,741
FY 2002...........$8,078,813,000.............17,590
FY 2001...........$7,832,211,000.............17,558
FY 2000...........$7,562,811,000.............17,726
FY 1999...........$7,590,352,000.............18,110
FY 1998...........$7,363,046,000.............17,739
FY 1997...........$6,799,393,000.............17,152
FY 1996...........$6,522,953,000.............17,082
FY 1995...........$7,240,887,000.............17,508
FY 1994...........$6,658,927,000.............17,106
FY 1993...........$6,892,424,000.............17,280
FY 1992...........$6,668,853,000.............17,010
FY 1991...........$6,094,287,000.............16,415
FY 1990...........$5,461,808,000.............16,318
FY 1989...........$5,155,125,000.............14,370
FY 1988...........$5,027,442,000.............14,442
FY 1987...........$5,364,092,000.............13,442
FY 1986...........$3,663,841,000.............12,892
FY 1985...........$4,353,655,000.............12,410
FY 1984...........$4,067,000,000.............11,420
FY 1983...........$3,688,688,000.............10,832
FY 1982...........$3,676,013,000.............11,402


a 50% reduction is still TOO MANY EMPLOYEES ... 7,500/50 = 150 per state

a 75% reduction would be ... 4000/50 = 80 per state ... still too many...

a 90% reduction would be ... 1539/50 ~ 31 per state... that's a good number...

I like your thinking

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

No, I would gut the agency and save the funds. The states can handle their own EPA business.

These people work for the government. Administrations change all the time. If they can't handle those changes, they have not shown all the skills required of their job. Pretty simple.

The states handling their own environmental protection is beyond stupid Pax. For example, WV decides to gut regulation and creates a toxic Mon River north of Morgantown. The upstream towns in PA can't use the water. And that assumes Either state can afford to regulate anything.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

https://publicaccess.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212071617-How-many-people-work-for-the-EPA-

EPA's Budget and Spending
View EPA expenditures on USA Spending.Gov.

Budget Resource Use

• Financial and performance reports: see how EPA managed its budget resources and allocated resources among programs.
• Historical budget documents: view prior year proposed budgets and congressional justification documents.
• Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds Manual: defines EPA's policies, and procedures to control appropriated funds based on federal legal and administrative requirements.
• Federal Program Inventory: describes each of EPA's programs and how they support the agency's mission.

Fiscal Year..... Enacted Budget..........Workforce
FY 2016.......... $8,139,887,000........... 15,376
FY 2015.......... $8,139,887,000........... 14,725
FY 2014.......... $8,200,000,000........... 15,408
FY 2013.......... $7,901,104,000........... 15,913
FY 2012.......... $8,449,385,000 ...........17,106
FY 2011...........$8,682,117,000.............17,359
FY 2010...........$10,297,864,000...........17,278
FY 2009...........$7,643,674,000.............17,049
FY 2008...........$7,472,324,000.............16,916
FY 2007...........$7,725,130,000.............17,072
FY 2006...........$7,617,416,000.............17,355
FY 2005...........$8,023,483,000.............17,495
FY 2004...........$8,365,420,000.............17,611
FY 2003...........$8,078,703,000.............17,741
FY 2002...........$8,078,813,000.............17,590
FY 2001...........$7,832,211,000.............17,558
FY 2000...........$7,562,811,000.............17,726
FY 1999...........$7,590,352,000.............18,110
FY 1998...........$7,363,046,000.............17,739
FY 1997...........$6,799,393,000.............17,152
FY 1996...........$6,522,953,000.............17,082
FY 1995...........$7,240,887,000.............17,508
FY 1994...........$6,658,927,000.............17,106
FY 1993...........$6,892,424,000.............17,280
FY 1992...........$6,668,853,000.............17,010
FY 1991...........$6,094,287,000.............16,415
FY 1990...........$5,461,808,000.............16,318
FY 1989...........$5,155,125,000.............14,370
FY 1988...........$5,027,442,000.............14,442
FY 1987...........$5,364,092,000.............13,442
FY 1986...........$3,663,841,000.............12,892
FY 1985...........$4,353,655,000.............12,410
FY 1984...........$4,067,000,000.............11,420
FY 1983...........$3,688,688,000.............10,832
FY 1982...........$3,676,013,000.............11,402


a 50% reduction is still TOO MANY EMPLOYEES ... 7,500/50 = 150 per state

a 75% reduction would be ... 4000/50 = 80 per state ... still too many...

a 90% reduction would be ... 1539/50 ~ 31 per state... that's a good number...

When your grandkids start glowing, remind us again about the importance of the EPA. And I think the EPA has grossly overstepped their mission. But you have to have minimum standards.

 

[WVPATX]

The states handling their own environmental protection is beyond stupid Pax. For example, WV decides to gut regulation and creates a toxic Mon River north of Morgantown. The upstream towns in PA can't use the water. And that assumes Either state can afford to regulate anything.

I have far more respect for the elected and appointed officials in West Virginia and in every other state to know what's best for their citizens.

 

[dave]

The states handling their own environmental protection is beyond stupid Pax. For example, WV decides to gut regulation and creates a toxic Mon River north of Morgantown. The upstream towns in PA can't use the water. And that assumes Either state can afford to regulate anything.

The states fo the work for the EPA now so how is it different?

 

[WVU82_rivals]

comment:
Every year during the Obama administration more small businesses failed than started up. This had never happened a single year in US recorded history prior to the Obama administration.

 

[WVPATX]

comment:
Every year during the Obama administration more small businesses failed than started up. This had never happened a single year in US recorded history prior to the Obama administration.

Obamas mentor growing up was Franklin Marshall Davis, a communist. He referred to him as uncle Frank and his book. I believe Obama viewed business as the enemy. In fact, he held one private sector job for a law firm after college. In his book, he included a letter he wrote to his mother. In it he claimed that he felt he was working behind enemy lines. A very telling look into the mind of Obama.