EPA Administrator Hated for a Variety of Reasons
There was a discussion here a few weeks ago in which I asserted that Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt was among the top five most hated people in the U.S. Though I couldn’t find a survey to back up my claim, it’s hard to imagine how that could be incorrect. Obviously, a great number of people don’t even know who he is, but after Trump, Pence, and Sessions, where do you go? And now, with the financial scandals, he’s making the news in quite a big way.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about things like the first-class air travel and the 18 full-time bodyguards. If people hated my guts with that level of passion, I’d keep a pretty decent distance between me and the common American too, and I’m sure many other people share my sentiments.
Having said that, there are two central issues for which Pruitt is rightfully hated:
• Poisoning us and, especially, our children. See above.
• Transferring the costs that were formerly borne by polluters back to the American people. From this article: The Environmental Agency has moved to rescind an Obama administration rule requiring hard rock mining operations to show they are financially able to absorb cleanup costs should their activities result in future pollution. The change will put the EPA’s Superfund (read: taxpayers) back on the hook for funding the bill.
There are many reasons, some better than others, to hate Scott Pruitt.
Craig,
Sometimes it pays to read a little more rational news source than the rantings of obscure leftist websites.
As usual, you exaggerate to the point of inaccuracy. ” Transferring the costs that were formerly borne by polluters back to the American people”, isn’t true.
In the case of hard rock gold and silver mining the proposal to compel gold and silver miners to prove the mining company had sufficient funds to clean any environmental damage, is not the law, and was always only a proposal under the Obama administration.
However, it a proposal I believe has considerable merit. The size of the fund and realistic risk assessment issues aside, the principle of ensuring any land reclamation and toxic waste disposal should be factored into any granting of a mining permit.
The amount should be allowed to become prohibitive or unrealistic, but just trusting to luck is also irresponsible and negligent conduct by the EPA and the regulator issuing the permit.
This is a poor discussion by Scott Pruitt, and one which I hope is reconsidered.
Unlike the decision by not one, but two, Federal Judges ruled in two separate actions favour of Exxon. In essence both judges rejected the claim Exxon Mobil suppressed Climate Science,used the “wrong” carbon price in its internal accounting methodology, or acted against the interests of shareholders.
Craig,
While like you, I’m not a fan of Scott Pruitt, it’s become obvious his detractors are less than on honest,eg:
1) Comparing Scott Pruitt’s travel expenses with those of his predecessors reveals his arrangements are relatively modest in comparison.
2) The Inspector generals report confirms Scott Pruitt don’t only didn’t give some EPA employees massive pay rises, but had he known he would have opposed the decision.
In fact it transpires the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson authorized three of those salary increases using an obscure provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act, a loophole used by all previous administrations.
In authorizing the raises, the EPA effectively overruled White House officials who had objected to at least two of the salary increases.
Salary determinations for appointees are made by EPA’s chief of staff, White House liaison and career human resources officials.
The confusion may have arisen from over eager journalists misreading Jackson signed off “Ryan Jackson for Scott Pruitt.”
On Scott Pruitt’s order, the raises were reversed and in a policy change, all future salary change requests will be submitted through the Office of Presidential Personnel for evaluation.
3) Increased security expenses are not instigated by Pruitt, but are part of a general security upgrade of all government agencies, and completely within the Government Accountability Office guidelines.
All these invented “scandal’s” are unhelpful, and only serve to detract from valid criticism of the EPA and it’s administration.
The EPA certainly needed reform and re-direction. Without these distractions it may have been possible, for the President ( now the drastic pruning of the EPA has been completed), to replace Pruitt with a more moderate Administrator.