Bush Administration Cuts Clean-Up Funding Mon Jul 1, 1:49 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration has cut the funds necessary to clean up 33 toxic waste sites in 18 states under the Superfund cleanup program, according to a new report to Congress by the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency, The New York Times reported Monday. The cuts will likely mean work comes to a halt at some of the more polluted sites in the U.S., according to the paper, increasing uncertainty over when the work will proceed and who will pay for it. Sites affected by the cuts include a manufacturing plant in Edison, New Jersey, where the herbicide Agent Orange, used in the Vietnam War, was produced, as well as several chemical plants in Florida and two old mines in Montana. Two Congressional Democrats, Representatives John Dingell of Michigan and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, gave the report to the paper after asking the environmental agency's inspector general for a copy. The two congressman represent states with heavy concentrations of Superfund sites. The report is the first public listing by the environmental agency of where it intends to cut Superfund spending. The administration had indicated it would reduce spending from the special fund that pays for cleaning up sites where the original polluter has gone out of business or is otherwise unable to pay for remediation. --- I guess Bush's stance is ...why clean them up... we're just gonna make more mess?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Drink bottled water Stay in your house Don't watch TV Don't use cell phones Eat steamed rice Don't grill your food Follow these steps and you will offset the probabilities of getting cancer from these waste dumps.
Maybe we can get this guy to clean it up? He was voted Springfield Nuclear Power Plant Toxic Waste Handler of the Month in October 1990. Homer: Oh this is the worst day ever. Lenny: Hey Homer, what gives? Homer: Mr. Burns is making me eat all these drums of toxic waste! Carl: Geez, that's rough. There must be 2 to 300 gallons in here. Lenny: And even a teaspoon could cause a fatal tumor. Listen to it Courtesy of Last Exit to Springfield.
What a jackass..... Nothing pisses me off more than a president who could give 2 sh!ts about our environment.
According to the Chronicle, two of the biggest sites that will get their cleanup funds cut are in east Texas, near Jasper, about 100 miles from Houston.
I am glad somebody has finally exposed President Bush. He clearly wants to poison our environment. Oh yeah, he wants to kill old people and starve children too!
Way to analyze both sides of the issue. Why don't you (or anyone) present the other side of the issue?
I'm not familiar with the other side, although I could probably come up with some guesses as to the rationale. You see, unlike some other people, I sometimes don't like to come to a conclusion without knowing all the facts.
I'm not familiar with the other side, although I could probably come up with some guesses as to the rationale. You see, unlike some other people, I sometimes don't like to come to a conclusion without knowing all the facts. Yet you assume that people here don't know the other side of the issue and only made their conclusions based on the article posted... Maybe you DO come to conclusions (about people here) without knowing all the facts.
I don't know what Bush wants to do, but it's clear what he doesn't, and that is helping poor people. How many of his campaign contributors are affected by supefund sites? If you live by a toxic waste dump, it's not just bad luck, it's because you are poor. It's pretty clear that Bush could give a rat's ass about poor people. Remember, this is the same guy who is responsible for a new public housing rule that calls for the eviction of an entire family if one member has abused drugs. What a humanitirian.
Regardless of the view from the other side, the fact is SUPERFUND funding is being cut. Who knows why, maybe to build a FANCY SPACE AGE BUCK ROGERS LASER MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEM? You know that thing can zap terrorist before they blow up buildings and people from space?!?!?! Do you think the money they are cutting is going to EDUCATION, PUBLIC HOUSING, ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR? I doubt it.... It's probably to boost the DEFENSE budget or maybe to pay for another COLONOSCOPY to find Bush's head!?
But you were doing exactly what you criticized them for doing. Just because you <B>think</B> you were correct in this instance doesn't make your comment any less hypocritical.
"The cuts will likely mean work comes to a halt at some of the more polluted sites in the U.S., according to the paper, increasing uncertainty over when the work will proceed and who will pay for it. " I would say it forces States to handle their own problems. Toxic waste is usually a result of manufactoring. The interstate commerce clause prevents Congress from making a lot of laws concerning manufactoring as it is meant to be a State responsibility. As such, Manufactoring's problems should be dealt on the State level as long as the contaminants are not crossing state lines. Pollution is very site specific. A true liberal, you know the guys who took great lengths trying to limit the federal government's power, would probably see it from this perspective. I pray it works out this way. I would think the States would suck it up. Texas's budget is going to take a hit, but I see no other choice for us than to bend over, take it, and then complain about it afterwards. This isn't the place to be stubborn. If a State doesn't force those responsible to foot the bill or foot the bill for cleanup, Bush should have superfund start up again for the site, but make the State pay the federal government back in installments or withhold their allowance. Its a very risky situation and I would prefer to have Superfund kept on the sites. Personally, I think its stupid from a practical standpoint of Bush to do this and would like the federal government's role in protecting the enviroment spelled out in the Constitution. I would say cutting NASA is not as big a deal as cutting Superfund sites (I've whined about this before and would like everyone to know my priorities). I consider the environment a more important expenditure than Scientififc advances. In order of importance, I see needed environmental expeditures up there with necessary military spenditures (the amount of spending to keep our enemies from killing us {we have a lot of enemies so I think this is a high number} and the amount needed to protect our soldiers {I hate when democrats dog advanced weapons spending because this is pretty much sending people from bad economic conditions in harm's way and yet conservatives are characterized as not caring for them}). Just remember the next time someone complains about Bush cutting some program, that someone loves toxic waste. You have to cut somewhere. This just ain't the place.
ok..cite the source here...show me the regulation or at least an article on this regulation...i haven't heard this yet, and it would certainly concern me, if true. somehow i'm guessing you've overstated it, though.
MadMax, http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0327/p02s01-usju.html Funny that it's from the 9th Circuit. I don't know if Bush is responsible for this law, but it'd be kind of funny if he was. Good thing he didn't live in public housing growing up and this rule wasn't in place.
The funding for this program has traditionally come from the Superfund tax which has been levied on corporations. Bush did not renew it on grounds that it taxes even the environmentally friendly companies. I totally agree with that, BUT the tax needs to be amended and re-instated -- levied on the larger polluting corporations, and not small, non-polluting or environmentally friendly companies. The funding isn't being moved somewhere else, it's just disappearing. Source: http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/story/453015p-3626632c.html And this morning's "Democracy Now" on 90.1
WOW. <b>Ms. Lee and Ms. Hill were ordered out of their homes because their grandchildren were seen in the parking lot with mar1juana. Ms. Rucker received her eviction notice because her daughter was seen by a housing-authority officer with cocaine and a crack pipe several blocks from the housing project. Mr. Walker, a disabled senior citizen, was ordered out because his live-in caregiver was found in possession of cocaine and a cocaine pipe.</B> I can understand the logic of evicting tenants if family or friends did drugs INSIDE the apartment on the logic that you're responsible for your own apartment. There's no way I can make sense of "your daughter was doing crack 5 blocks away, so you're out" though. That's ridiculous.
Thanks for the information, Vengeance. I should have saved my speculation for a one sided trade. Here goes... Garnett for Rice, Griffin, KT, Collier, Cato, and Moochie.
