Shut down the EPA?

[bedstuy]

Apparently, mainstream Republicans now support getting rid of the EPA.  Joni Ernst might actually get elected advocating that position in a competitive Senate race in Iowa.  That's bonkers, no?  How say you? 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I would sooner shut down any other federal department than the EPA.

[AggregateDemand]

EPA is two different things 1) an agency that protects the environment 2) an independent agency beyond the reach of the electorate.

It was created by a Californian to protect California from the country bumpkins and titans of dirty industry. California CARB is quite powerful at present.

EPA doesn't need to be an independent agency.

[King]

EPA's just one of those things Republicans hate when they're not in control of it. A GOP President would not propose getting rid of such a powerful tool.

[Mr. Illini]

[New_Conservative]

No, the EPA should not be abolished, but some of its regulations are insane, its regulatory power is too much.

[bedstuy]

No, the EPA should not be abolished, but some of its regulations are insane, its regulatory power is too much.

Like what for example?  Do you want to see more marketable permit trading programs?  And, how does the EPA have too much regulatory power?  I don't really get that.

[King]

They believe in climate change = breach of power.

[King]

Anyone who has ideas of eliminating 40-100+ year old institutions like EPA, the Fed, Social Security, Medicare, etc., has to turn in their "conservative" card and call themselves a radical.

[Mr. Smith]

Don't call 'em radicals, that's an insult to the abolitionists, suffragists, those that fought to elect senators by popular vote, and civil rights activists.

These people are Regressivists,plain and simple.

Trying to get rid of the EPA is a regressive idea.

[New_Conservative]

No, the EPA should not be abolished, but some of its regulations are insane, its regulatory power is too much.

Like what for example?  Do you want to see more marketable permit trading programs?  And, how does the EPA have too much regulatory power?  I don't really get that.

I am huge proponent of protecting the environment, and abolishing the EPA all together would be a set back, but I think the program should be reformed. There is a lot of red tape that agencies have to jump through to get a project going, a prime example of that is what we are seeing with South Coast Rail in Massachusetts, and that is a government program. A lot of money is spent with studies, and it takes years for a program to be approved by the EPA.

[RI]

Environmental regulation is one area with extremely well established justification in economics. There is little objective reason to complete do away with such a regulatory authority or worse: make it at the whim of voters.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's tempting, but not without figuring out a better system.

Anyone who has ideas of eliminating 40-100+ year old institutions like EPA, the Fed, Social Security, Medicare, etc., has to turn in their "conservative" card and call themselves a radical.

These institutions are generally designed in such a way that they continue to expand their reach at the expense of other institutions.  Agencies find new things to regulate and new methods of regulating and shuttering shops, entitlement programs make up a larger and larger portion of the economy, etc. It is not necessarily conservative to support this trajectory just because it is the status quo.

[Vosem]

No, we really do need the EPA.

[SWE]

I would sooner shut down any other federal department than the EPA.

[TDAS04]

Absolutely not.

[King]

It's tempting, but not without figuring out a better system.

Anyone who has ideas of eliminating 40-100+ year old institutions like EPA, the Fed, Social Security, Medicare, etc., has to turn in their "conservative" card and call themselves a radical.

These institutions are generally designed in such a way that they continue to expand their reach at the expense of other institutions.  Agencies find new things to regulate and new methods of regulating and shuttering shops, entitlement programs make up a larger and larger portion of the economy, etc. It is not necessarily conservative to support this trajectory just because it is the status quo.

Not supporting the trajectory is okay, but full elimination is another thing entirely. It's an aggressive reform and not conservatism. Eliminating these programs suggests that they never worked and, therefore, America during this time has been in a constant state of broken in your lifetime.

Everyone on this board has lived under the Federal Reserve, for example, their entire lives. As such, anyone who wants it gone is equivalent to anyone who wants to replace Congress with a parliament or scrap private healthcare. It's a call to overturn a system you were born into it. . It is neither cautious nor traditional. It's rebellion and radicalism at its core. It is not conservatism.

The EPA is not as old as the Fed, but the same rule applies. We've gone over 40 years with the EPA. There's been economic highs and lows. For a great amount of it's history, the EPA has succeeded in its mission. To turn back, is to turn your back on the past 40 years and that's a radical, far out thought.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Holy Christ no.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, we really do need the EPA.

I'd like to see the EPA merged into the Interior Department or Energy, but I don't want it totally abolished.

[bedstuy]

No, the EPA should not be abolished, but some of its regulations are insane, its regulatory power is too much.

Like what for example?  Do you want to see more marketable permit trading programs?  And, how does the EPA have too much regulatory power?  I don't really get that.

I am huge proponent of protecting the environment, and abolishing the EPA all together would be a set back, but I think the program should be reformed. There is a lot of red tape that agencies have to jump through to get a project going, a prime example of that is what we are seeing with South Coast Rail in Massachusetts, and that is a government program. A lot of money is spent with studies, and it takes years for a program to be approved by the EPA.

OK, I agree with that in a sense.  I think you're talking about NEPA.  I agree we ought to streamline that whole process, especially when it comes to things like sustainable energy infrastructure.  But, NEPA is small potatoes compared to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.   

Moreover, that's kind of a nothing criticism.  If you're saying this big government agency needs to be "reformed" that's meaningless without more.  It's easy to say, "the government takes too long!"  "This is too complicated!"  But, if you're talking about the technical specifications of a power plant, how on earth is it going to be simple?  The EPA is an agency that makes all these technical and scientific judgements, that's why it's complicated.

Here's what I don't hear from Republicans:  "We should allow more mercury in the air!"  "We should allow more poop in our rivers!"  If you're saying, I want a clean environment, but I don't want lots of rules about pollution, you're saying nothing.  And, if you're voting for politicians who are going to vote for higher mercury and cadmium levels and more poop in our rivers, guess what, you're not actually a proponent of a clean environment.  As if this whole debate is between Democrats who like red tape and Republicans who want this magically, effective EPA.  Today's Republicans carry water for big polluters like the Koch Brothers.  These issues about federalism and red tape are just a sideshow to distract people from the fact that government needs to make choices and regulate polluters.  If you're supporting Republicans, you're supporting a party that completely ignores the environment and acts as a puppet for the oil and gas industry. 

[IceSpear]

Anyone who has ideas of eliminating 40-100+ year old institutions like EPA, the Fed, Social Security, Medicare, etc., has to turn in their "conservative" card and call themselves a radical.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Democrats are actually closer to genuine conservatism at this point than the GOP is. Dems tend to tinker around the edges in reforms, whereas the GOP wants radical change.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gee, air pollution only kills 200,000 Americans every year. No big deal.

[eric82oslo]

Apparently, mainstream Republicans now support getting rid of the EPA.  Joni Ernst might actually get elected advocating that position in a competitive Senate race in Iowa.  That's bonkers, no?  How say you? 

Richard Nixon would turn in his grave if he knew what present day Iowa had become.

[angus]

Bruce Brayley was my congressman for five years.  For five years he was unresponsive to me and disagreeable to many.  He's a vocal opponent of tort reform.  He got sweetheart deals from state universities for his family members and friends, and continues to support subsidies for the monoculture that is simultaneously ruining the land in our nation's breadbasket and increasing food costs for many of the world's most vulnerable populations.  He authored the Cash For Clunkers bill, and was a sponsor of many other wasteful spending measures.  He was a big proponent of the PPACA.  He's a hypocrite and a partisan hack.  He's a hard man to like, and I really can't think of anything good to say about Bruce Brayley and I'm sure I'd vote fore anyone who ran against him for any office, if I were still living in his jurisdiction, but I have to say that the EPA is necessary.  His opponent is wrong about this issue.  I'm not saying that Bruce Brayley is right about anything, mind you, just that his opponent is wrong.  The EPA has one simple mission:  to protect human health by protecting the health of the environment.  There can be no greater charge.  It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions.  We have benefited from the Clean Air Act and the fuel economy standards as well.  The world is a much cleaner place because of the EPA and I imagine that all Americans understand this.  Why Joni Ernst would make such a statement isn't immediately clear to me, but it is not an easy statement to justify.  Then again, I'd probably still vote for her.  I'd probably vote for Mephistopheles if he were running against Bruce Brayley, because I know that we can sort out the details after that mean-spirited bastard is defeated.  Hopefully she was just making noises.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Holy Christ no.