As part of a coalition of public interest organizations working toward a responsible federal budget that protects people and the planet, I released the following statement on President Trump's reckless budget proposal that guts the EPA, eliminates federal funding for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort, and more.
"The president's 'skinny budget' is a particularly apt description for a proposal that would leave crucial protector agencies too emaciated to safeguard our health, safety and environment. Whether it's pipeline inspectors to protect our land and water from oil spills, or workplace safety inspectors to ensure our family members return home safely from their jobs, or environmental inspectors to prevent air pollution and toxic chemical disasters, many agencies simply don't have sufficient resources to conduct the level of enforcement needed to safeguard all Americans. Slashing their budgets even further would be the height of irresponsibility, and Congress should reject Trump's proposal and give agencies the resources they need to police corporate special interests that cannot be trusted to police themselves."
As for the rest of us, it's more important than ever that we remain vigilant about the Distracter-in-Chief's strategy here. Extremists in Congress have been proposing drastic budget cuts for years, but their proposals were positioned alongside a president's budget that reflected the real costs of faithfully executing and enforcing our nation's laws. No longer. President Trump's first budget is an obvious and simplistic ploy designed to shift the frame of the debate. By proposing cuts so far outside the realm of what's reasonable, he is hoping to breathe life into the extremist budget proposals that were DOA just this time last year.
Even as the frame shifts, there may be room for hope if we can focus on what these numbers really mean. Drastic cuts to enforcement budgets will erode the rule of law, leaving individual members of the public, workers, public interest groups, and unions to try to enforce the law using the tools at their disposal. By the way, legislation has been introduced that would dull those tools. And starving the top-notch research programs at EPA, the Department of Energy, or other agencies will not stop climate change or create new coal seams – it will just make us less prepared for the future and eliminate good jobs for skilled scientists and the teams with whom they work. These agencies provide critical pieces of the framework upon which our society is built and safety nets for people who struggle along the way. They are already suffering from years of resource attrition. The frame-shifting strategy that the Trump administration's budget sets into motion could result in a major restructuring of that social framework and safety net, one that future Congresses and presidents will have to work hard to repair.
Showing 2,913 results
Matt Shudtz | March 16, 2017
As part of a coalition of public interest organizations working toward a responsible federal budget that protects people and the planet, I released the following statement on President Trump’s reckless budget proposal that guts the EPA, eliminates federal funding for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort, and more. “The president’s ‘skinny budget’ is a particularly apt […]
John Echeverria | March 15, 2017
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a seemingly minor zoning case, Murr v. State of Wisconsin. In reality, the case involves a fundamental challenge to public authority to protect our communities and private property. In particular, if the Court were to rule in favor of petitioners, it would make it vastly […]
Joseph Tomain | March 13, 2017
The Trump administration’s fundamental hostility to government is by now plainly apparent. The President issued an executive order requiring agencies to get rid of two regulations for each new one that is adopted. He appointed administrators who have been extraordinarily hostile to the missions of the departments and agencies that they now head, such as […]
David Driesen | March 7, 2017
This op-ed originally ran in The Hill. The Feb. 28 executive order overturning a Clean Water Act rule clarifying EPA’s jurisdiction over wetlands furnishes but the latest example of President Trump’s propensity to rule by almost daily fiat. Trump has ruled by decree ever since he assumed office. He has not proposed a single bill […]
Dave Owen | March 6, 2017
Originally published on Environmental Law Prof Blog by CPR Member Scholar Dave Owen. Last Tuesday, President Trump signed an executive order directing EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to begin work on a new rule defining the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The rule, if and when it is finalized, would replace the […]
Matthew Freeman | March 6, 2017
Unless you regularly read newspapers from markets ranging from Baltimore to Houston to the San Francisco Bay area, chances are that you missed some of the op-eds that CPR’s scholars and staff published in the nation’s newspapers in February. We post links on our website, of course; you can find them on the various issue […]
James Goodwin | March 3, 2017
The first rule of reading anti-regulatory bills, executive orders, and other policy prescriptions is: Sweat the hyper-technical, anodyne-sounding stuff. And President Donald Trump’s February 24 executive order on “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” demonstrates why this rule exists. One of the order’s provisions – which no doubt caused glaze to form over many an eye […]
Robert L. Glicksman | March 2, 2017
In his first speech upon assuming his duties as EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt informed the agency’s employees that “regulators exist to give certainty to those that they regulate.” No, Mr. Pruitt, they do not. Regulators and the regulations they are responsible for adopting and enforcing exist to protect the public interest. In particular, they exist […]
Lesley McAllister | March 2, 2017
Originally published on Environmental Law Prof Blog by CPR Member Scholar Lesley McAllister. Did you know that as of July 2016, we have a new federal law mandating that genetically engineered food be labeled? It is true – see 7 U.S.C. § 1639(b)(2)(D) (Jul. 29, 2016). So when, you might ask, will you be able to know […]