SPECIAL GUEST EDITORIAL

by Scott Portman

As a budget was agreed upon earlier this week, there still remains some controversy over the decision to only cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by only 16 percent in total. Business leaders and GOP representatives remain frustrated with the lack of action to cut down on the EPA’s lofty and expensive regulations that in their opinion, effect industry revenue and employment growth.

As the resolution certainly pleased some and upset others on Monday, many of these business leaders and Republican reps still see a polluted future in business, with reference to EPA regulations. The $1.6 billion cut to the EPA represents just half of the cut that was hoped for, in regards to the EPA. The EPA cuts agreed upon in the resolution would only serve to cut down on some of the smaller initiatives of the EPA that have little impact on business and the environment.

The GOP has used the early months of the year to point out the flaws in certain initiatives of the EPA, primarily the Clean Air Act. They view the Clean Air Act as an enabler to the EPA’s power in monitoring businesses through the Cap and Trade Agenda. The GOP took further steps to lessen the EPA’s power by introducing the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 just last month. This act was developed to take direct aim at the cap and trade agenda, as well as taking some of the power and decision making away from the EPA.

Republicans James Inhofe, Fred Upton, and Ed Whitfield helped to introduce the Energy Tax Prevention Act and were adamant about the change that it would bring upon and how it would help the people. In a post release draft they exclaimed that “With this draft proposal, we are initiating a deliberative, transparent process that we hope will prevent EPA from imposing by regulation the massive cap-and-trade tax that Congress rejected last year. We firmly believe federal bureaucrats should not be unilaterally setting national climate change policy, and with good reason: EPA’s cap-and-trade tax agenda will cost jobs, undermine the competitiveness of America’s manufacturers, and, as EPA has conceded, will have no meaningful impact on climate.”

Inhofe and other Republicans have been forward in saying that they aren’t looking to destroy the EPA, they would just rather see their resources be used more proficiently on things that will help the US citizens more directly. For example, an EPA initiative such as asbestos removal, which has a direct impact on citizen health, should be given more resources and effort. Asbestos removal helps prevent numbers of mesothelioma cases every year in the United States. Through the EPA’s efforts to abate this material from areas all over, they are in some cases, saving lives. As mesothelioma life expectancy is very small and severe, an increased effort towards a program like this could help save citizens directly from environmentally related and life threatening risks.

Amidst all the controversy that has surrounded the US budget for the past month or so, the GOP will certainly look to continue their effort to show the EPA regulations for what they truly are, unnecessary. Even though the EPA budget has been decided on for the year 2011, further exploration of cuts to unnecessary regulations should be invested, while effective programs should be given more resources in the long term.

Scott Portman is a health, safety, and political advocate. He has a great passion for economics and American fiscal policy. He is a graduate of University of South Florida and is an aspiring journalist.