According to the New York Times, congressional Republicans are pushing to cut $3 billion from the EPA's FY (Fiscal Year) 2012 budget in the hopes to reduce the nation's $1 trillion debt. These cuts would constitute 69% of the total cuts in spending the Republicans are proposing, which also includes cutting the Dept. of Energy's Efficiency and Renewables Program by over one-third of its FY 2011 budget. The Republicans also want to lay off 20,000 research positions at the National Science Foundation and want to prevent the EPA from creating and enforcing greenhouse gas emissions rules.
Relatively more minor goals for the GOP are to remove competitive grants for local land-use planning, eliminate the White House Energy and Climate Advisor's Office, and to change the definition of the term "navigable waters" in the Clean Water Act.
In response to claims from the Democrats that they are willing to risk a government shutdown in order to cut spending as much as possible, the Republican House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, accused the Democrats of fear-mongering.
...THE BLUE SIDE...
The Democrats, on the other hand, the White House in particular, want to freeze all non-military discretionary (optional) spending for five-years and give the DOE $8 million to spend on researching clean energy technology. Obama's budget also contains other big investments, but those do carry a level of risk. Democrats also, as mentioned earlier, accuse the Republicans of risking a government shutdown to cut spending as much as possible. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said, "We're willing to meet Republicans in the middle on spending, but they keep lurching to the right. This is what happens when you pick a number first and figure out the cuts later," saying that the Republicans are making a poor choice in deciding how much to cut before deciding what programs to cut.
...MY SIDE...
I think the Democrats have some good ideas. Stuff like the EPA and the DOE are important, and like Schumer said, you can't just pick numbers and then cuts. We have to see what we should and should not cut before we create a final number.
...AND YOUR SIDE
1) Which side do you pick? The Republicans, who support drastic short-term cuts but include cuts to the EPA? Or the Democrats, who have a long-term plan but include large, potentially risky investments?
2) In any situation, do you think ANY cut to the EPA is a good idea?
3) What do you think are the pros and cons of each party's plan?
4) What would you propose if you were a member of Congress?
This was great article Eric good job as for the questions.
ReplyDelete1) I do not really support either side 100% but I guess I support the Republicans (but I do not agree with the EPA cuts) because we will get of this deficit eventually but we have to prevent the deficit from getting any larger and the Democrats risk a huge loss. They have the better plan but I honestly think if we do what it takes now to keep the deficit right where it is, and if we lose millions because of the democrats we could be in alot of trouble.
2) No I do not because the real future of our energy is more likely than not in alternative energy resources.
3) The pros of the republican plan is that they will have a less risk plan, but the con is that they have way, way too many drastic cuts. The democrats have a long-term plan that is better prepared for the future but they risk too much that risks putting us in a hole we cannot get out of.
4) I would propose a plan that is better prepared for the future like the democrat plan but is not very risy much like the Rebpublicans. It would be a plan that includes investing in our natural resources and cutting our spending but does not cut spending and a plan that does not involve big investments that may doom our chance to recover quickly from this deficit.
I dislike how partisan American politics are. There's always an us vs. them mentality, and isn't at all conducive to actually getting things done.
ReplyDelete1) The Republican plan is irresponsible and short-sighted. The Democrats' plan, while nowhere near a perfect solution, is much better, I think. Many of the budgets are tight already and can't afford cuts. It would be more effective to make sure the money is used more efficiently than to just cut it out.
2) No, they seem to be under-funded as it is. If anything, they need more money. While eight million may seem like a lot, it's really petty change in government money.
3) The pros of the GOP plan is that it cuts the deficit, but a con is that it is at the cost of major budget cuts to vital government programs. The pros of the Democrats' plan is that they increase funding to a few deserving programs, but at the cost of a higher deficit. But I think that is a trade-off that needs to be made.
4) I think it is ridiculous that neither plan proposes cutting military funding. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/discret.gif The US accounts for FORTY-THREE PERCENT of the ENTIRE WORLD'S military spending, and yet has achieved nothing with all the money. I think it's time their funding gets major cuts. Put THAT money towards cutting the deficit.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that the Republicans should use 69% of their cuts on the EPA’s fiscal year 2012 budget. All the EPA is trying to do is help protect human health and the environment. If the EPA receives such a significant cut in their budget, they may no longer be able to achieve such high standards. And if humans or the environment are harmed because the EPA won’t be able to stop it, then the whole situation will be the Republicans’ fault. I also don’t agree with the fact that the Republicans plan to cut budgets again, this time for the Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Program. Again, with substantial budget cuts that the Republicans are planning to implement, no organization will be able to live up to its greatest potential. Finally, I find it stupid that the Republicans are willing to lay off over 20,000 people at the National Science Foundation and prohibit the EPA from making greenhouse gas emissions rules and laws. Laying off more people will only hurt the already bad economy, and the public will not be happy about that. And if the EPA can’t make rules regarding the emission of greenhouse gases, then the atmosphere will become much more polluted than it already is. I do not agree with any of the changes the Republicans are planning to make.
I also don’t agree with everything the Democrats wish to do. I’m glad that they’re keeping spending the same for the military, but I don’t believe that they should grant the DOE 8 million dollars. It’s good that the money goes for a purpose, researching clean energy technology, but I don’t think that so much money should be granted. If other spending (except of that for the military) is going to be frozen, then I don’t think the DOE should benefit so highly from everyone else’s loss. Finally, I don’t agree with how Obama is taking risky investments with his budget. Since he is the president, after all, I don’t think it’s the wisest choice to be taking high risks, especially those involving money, because of the current state of the economy.
On the other hand, there is something I do agree with. And that is what Senator Chuck Schumer from New York said about how the Republicans should be deciding what programs to cut before they decide how much to cut. It’s just common sense.
Answer the Questions:
1) I would have to say that I side with the Democrats because although I disagree with what both sides are planning to do, there is more that I dislike from the Republican side. Plus, although both options aren’t great, I think it would be better to take large, risky investments then to take drastic short-term cuts, including some to the EPA. Money for the EPA is one of my top priorities, though, so that made what side I chose easier.
2) Yes, I do think under certain circumstances it is okay to give cuts to the EPA. While the EPA should never have to experience such a drastic cut as the Republicans have planned for them, I feel that a smaller one would be okay, as long as the money goes for a good cause. The money just needs to be put to good use or given to an organization that really needs help if it is going to be taken from the EPA’s budget.
Ask more questions:
1) Do you think that the cuts the Republicans are planning to make are fair?
2) How do you feel about Senator Chuck Schumer’s statement regarding the Republicans’ poor decision to decide how much to cut before deciding what programs to cut?
3) Do you feel either side is making smart decisions? If so, which one and why? If neither one, how come?
4) What do you think will happen if the Republicans get to implement their plans? How about the Democrats?