The EPA and some good news for US.

Help Support CattleToday:

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
11
Location
MO Ozarks
Cracks me up the part about not having seen anything like this in almost a decade with the agency. Wonder if that almost a decade was 8 years?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
14,984
Reaction score
29
Location
Texas
dun":1d7w2irl said:
Cracks me up the part about not having seen anything like this in almost a decade with the agency. Wonder if that almost a decade was 8 years?

Especially after they noted it was common for new administrations in the past.

Someone needs to keep track. Someone needs to question.
 

Margonme

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
1,768
Reaction score
0
Location
Princedom
This commonly occurs in agencies when a new administration of the opposite party takes office. Until the cabinet positions and admistrators are seated, funding for programs not mandated by public law are frozen until the new heads of office can oversee where the funding is going.

In the case of EPA, which is not a cabinet office, and therefore is not administered by a secretary, this executive order will freeze cooperative agreement and grant funding until a new administrator is seated.

Cooperative agreements and grants are the funding instruments that provide states and Indian Reservation cost share money to build infrastructure such as waste water treatment facilities, and funding to conduct enforcement activities.

There is a longstanding debate on the multiple layers of bureaucracy and efficiency created by delegating programs. Congress passes Public Laws which places federal mandates on the executive branch. The executive branch in the past 40 years has authorized states and tribes to fulfill those mandates. Before accepting those mandates, states and tribes have insisted that the federal government pay the cost of those mandates. That has created the federal funding nightmare . These funds are tracked but there is enormous inefficiencies. EPA has a relatively small budget compared to other agencies like the Department of Agriculture.

It might be interesting to some that public water treatment, sewage treatment facilities, solid waste disposal, etc. are largely funded through EPA. Where the tax burden should be is a very thorny issue. States resist shouldering the tax burden for these public facilities so it falls to the federal government. Since the federal government has an annual budget deficit, think of it this way. CHINA PAYS FOR THE CLEAN WATER YOU DRINK.
 

Margonme

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
1,768
Reaction score
0
Location
Princedom
True Grit Farms":31cgasuc said:
Millions depend on the Department of Agricultural to eat. The EPA is a job killer, and a communist organization.

I am not debating the merits of the EPA or comparing one agency to another.

Your original post was on the subject of freezing grants and cooperative agreement funding. The most aggressive attempt to curtail the EPA was during the Reagan Administration:

Anne Irene McGill Gorsuch Burford (April 21, 1942 – July 18, 2004), also known as Anne M. Gorsuch, was an American attorney and politician. Between 1981 and 1983, while known as Anne M. Gorsuch, she served under President Ronald Reagan as the first female Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Perhaps Trump can be more successful. I will add one thought, only commentary:

Any meaningful longterm changes in the duties and mission of an agency have to occur through legislative action. The administrator of the EPA must pursue the mandates of Congress, its the core of the agency's mission. The Government Accounting Office, the Office of the Inspector General and ultimately the Supreme Court will see to that. Not to mention all the court actions that environmental activist will file if the agency ignores its legal obligations.
 
OP
T

True Grit Farms

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
9,453
Reaction score
4
Location
Middle Georgia
skyhightree1":1y2x8rws said:
True Grit Farms":1y2x8rws said:
Millions depend on the Department of Agricultural to eat. The EPA is a job killer, and a communist organization.

We don't agree on much but I agree

As you age and your kids get older you gradually become more conservative, so there's still hope for you Sky. This old dog has lost his bite, and his bark doesn't mean much anymore.
 

skyhightree1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
20,340
Reaction score
601
Location
Free Rent ,VA
True Grit Farms":2681qbbu said:
skyhightree1":2681qbbu said:
True Grit Farms":2681qbbu said:
Millions depend on the Department of Agricultural to eat. The EPA is a job killer, and a communist organization.

We don't agree on much but I agree

As you age and your kids get older you gradually become more conservative, so there's still hope for you Sky. This old dog has lost his bite, and his bark doesn't mean much anymore.

:lol2:

USDA needs an overhauling and some slapping down too
 
OP
T

True Grit Farms

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
9,453
Reaction score
4
Location
Middle Georgia
Margonme":2zzvu33t said:
True Grit Farms":2zzvu33t said:
Millions depend on the Department of Agricultural to eat.
Not to mention all the court actions that environmental activist will file if the agency ignores its legal obligations.

There's ways around that, just cut government spending. Most environmental groups have their legal fees paid for by the government because their a non - profit organization.
We're finally using this non - profit loop hole in our fight against NMFS. And it's been paying big dividends, as no new rules have been passed against the commercial fishermen in the last two years. It's amazing how a little money and a threat of another lawsuit slows the system down.
 

Margonme

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
1,768
Reaction score
0
Location
Princedom
True Grit Farms":1loi5771 said:
Margonme":1loi5771 said:
True Grit Farms":1loi5771 said:
Millions depend on the Department of Agricultural to eat.
Not to mention all the court actions that environmental activist will file if the agency ignores its legal obligations.

There's ways around that, just cut government spending. Most environmental groups have their legal fees paid for by the government because their a non - profit organization.
We're finally using this non - profit loophole in our fight against NMFS. And it's been paying big dividends, as no new rules have been passed against the commercial fishermen in the last two years. It's amazing how a little money and a threat of another lawsuit slows the system down.

The Power of the Purse. It does work. My point is if you want substantive long term change, it is best achieved through legislation. Federal Agencies are agents of the Administrative or Executive Branch of US Government. In the case of EPA, their mission is founded in Public Laws Mandated by the Congress of the United States. Failure to implement and enforce those Public Laws is subject to recourse by any citizen of the United States and subject to the oversight of Congress and the Office of the Inspector General. The Executive Branch does not have the constitutional authority short of Martial Law to stop those Public Laws from being implemented.
 

sim.-ang.king

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
5,730
Reaction score
557
Location
Southern IL
Maybe they should donate the EPA to the UN, then dump both of them off into the Atlantic. Give them to one of our Socialist neighbors to enjoy.
 
OP
T

True Grit Farms

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
9,453
Reaction score
4
Location
Middle Georgia
sim.-ang.king":2jvpo1jt said:
Maybe they should donate the EPA to the UN, then dump both of them off into the Atlantic. Give them to one of our Socialist neighbors to enjoy.

Germany welcomes everyone from anywhere. That would be a good starting point.
 

Caustic Burno

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
27,183
Reaction score
2,057
Location
Big Thicket East Texas
True Grit Farms":eqguhhyv said:
sim.-ang.king":eqguhhyv said:
Maybe they should donate the EPA to the UN, then dump both of them off into the Atlantic. Give them to one of our Socialist neighbors to enjoy.

Germany welcomes everyone from anywhere. That would be a good starting point.
They already act like SS Troops
 

Commercialfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
0
Location
Western Oklahoma
Margonme":341j32ro said:
This commonly occurs in agencies when a new administration of the opposite party takes office. Until the cabinet positions and admistrators are seated, funding for programs not mandated by public law are frozen until the new heads of office can oversee where the funding is going.

In the case of EPA, which is not a cabinet office, and therefore is not administered by a secretary, this executive order will freeze cooperative agreement and grant funding until a new administrator is seated.

Cooperative agreements and grants are the funding instruments that provide states and Indian Reservation cost share money to build infrastructure such as waste water treatment facilities, and funding to conduct enforcement activities.

There is a longstanding debate on the multiple layers of bureaucracy and efficiency created by delegating programs. Congress passes Public Laws which places federal mandates on the executive branch. The executive branch in the past 40 years has authorized states and tribes to fulfill those mandates. Before accepting those mandates, states and tribes have insisted that the federal government pay the cost of those mandates. That has created the federal funding nightmare . These funds are tracked but there is enormous inefficiencies. EPA has a relatively small budget compared to other agencies like the Department of Agriculture.

It might be interesting to some that public water treatment, sewage treatment facilities, solid waste disposal, etc. are largely funded through EPA. Where the tax burden should be is a very thorny issue. States resist shouldering the tax burden for these public facilities so it falls to the federal government. Since the federal government has an annual budget deficit, think of it this way. CHINA PAYS FOR THE CLEAN WATER YOU DRINK.

I don't want subsidies in ag, so you could kill it all and I'd be fine with it.

But, how much of the ag budget is actually the welfare budget labelled as ag?
 

Margonme

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
1,768
Reaction score
0
Location
Princedom
Commercialfarmer":8ampftgi said:
Margonme":8ampftgi said:
This commonly occurs in agencies when a new administration of the opposite party takes office. Until the cabinet positions and admistrators are seated, funding for programs not mandated by public law are frozen until the new heads of office can oversee where the funding is going.

In the case of EPA, which is not a cabinet office, and therefore is not administered by a secretary, this executive order will freeze cooperative agreement and grant funding until a new administrator is seated.

Cooperative agreements and grants are the funding instruments that provide states and Indian Reservation cost share money to build infrastructure such as waste water treatment facilities, and funding to conduct enforcement activities.

There is a longstanding debate on the multiple layers of bureaucracy and efficiency created by delegating programs. Congress passes Public Laws which places federal mandates on the executive branch. The executive branch in the past 40 years has authorized states and tribes to fulfill those mandates. Before accepting those mandates, states and tribes have insisted that the federal government pay the cost of those mandates. That has created the federal funding nightmare . These funds are tracked but there is enormous inefficiencies. EPA has a relatively small budget compared to other agencies like the Department of Agriculture.

It might be interesting to some that public water treatment, sewage treatment facilities, solid waste disposal, etc. are largely funded through EPA. Where the tax burden should be is a very thorny issue. States resist shouldering the tax burden for these public facilities so it falls to the federal government. Since the federal government has an annual budget deficit, think of it this way. CHINA PAYS FOR THE CLEAN WATER YOU DRINK.

I don't want subsidies in ag, so you could kill it all and I'd be fine with it.

But, how much of the ag budget is actually the welfare budget labelled as ag?

I don't know the portion and it certainly would be dependent on how you define agricultural welfare.
 

Commercialfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
0
Location
Western Oklahoma
Margonme":1capslwz said:
Commercialfarmer":1capslwz said:
Margonme":1capslwz said:
This commonly occurs in agencies when a new administration of the opposite party takes office. Until the cabinet positions and admistrators are seated, funding for programs not mandated by public law are frozen until the new heads of office can oversee where the funding is going.

In the case of EPA, which is not a cabinet office, and therefore is not administered by a secretary, this executive order will freeze cooperative agreement and grant funding until a new administrator is seated.

Cooperative agreements and grants are the funding instruments that provide states and Indian Reservation cost share money to build infrastructure such as waste water treatment facilities, and funding to conduct enforcement activities.

There is a longstanding debate on the multiple layers of bureaucracy and efficiency created by delegating programs. Congress passes Public Laws which places federal mandates on the executive branch. The executive branch in the past 40 years has authorized states and tribes to fulfill those mandates. Before accepting those mandates, states and tribes have insisted that the federal government pay the cost of those mandates. That has created the federal funding nightmare . These funds are tracked but there is enormous inefficiencies. EPA has a relatively small budget compared to other agencies like the Department of Agriculture.

It might be interesting to some that public water treatment, sewage treatment facilities, solid waste disposal, etc. are largely funded through EPA. Where the tax burden should be is a very thorny issue. States resist shouldering the tax burden for these public facilities so it falls to the federal government. Since the federal government has an annual budget deficit, think of it this way. CHINA PAYS FOR THE CLEAN WATER YOU DRINK.

I don't want subsidies in ag, so you could kill it all and I'd be fine with it.

But, how much of the ag budget is actually the welfare budget labelled as ag?

I don't know the portion and it certainly would be dependent on how you define agricultural welfare.

71% of the entire budget is Nutrional Assistance. I would label that welfare. Not agricultural welfare, but welfare.

Being that 71% of the budget is welfare, it would be more acurately called the food welfare budget..

So exactly what does comparing the EPA's budget have to do with the food welfare budget?
 

Latest posts

Top