Why does Ron Paul, Republicans, hate EPA?

Why do Republicans want to kill the EPA?

I was just looking at Ron Paul's Energy plan on his presidential website and on the bottom it includes:

 

The Government Bureaurcracy will never be able to create a system that works and their systems in general tend to push Businesses/Industry away. Also with it being the Government's ballpark with how the Rules are set they can decide which companies do and don't have to follow the Rules they throw out unilaterally. Quite similar to the Admistrations waiving GE from the regulations other power companies have.

It creates favortism and illogical rules.

If a State wants a EPA in their State go for it... Just don't make it Unilateral for every state to a Government Program that usurps the control of the people's buying decisions and the Laws themselves.

 

To wgabrie: Because for all intents and purposes the EPA is a United Nations agency.

Briefly stated: The United Nations falsely claims authority over the atmosphere and the oceans. The UN’s goal is to acquire taxing authority —— the primary requisite in establishing a global government. The EPA implements the UN’s agenda by posing as a federal bureaucracy working for the American people. It’s no more complicated than that.

 

Because they put the well being of insects and rodents above human beings........
.
.
.
.

 

Because of the 10th Amendment. It's a State issue, there should be State agencies for that.

Plus, the Federal Government is an unregulated polluter.

 

That's quite a leap: EPA, to UN, to global government. Shall I make a leap too and guess that your opposition is religious based on your interpretation of the last chapter in the Bible?

 

Yes, I remember during the Bush administration the EPA was hung up to dry in favor of "business interests." Did that happen during previous administrations too?

 

Why do Republicans want to open up all these agencies at the state level? The States can't afford to maintain the basics but you want to hand them more financial burdens? Do you want your local taxes to increase?

 

if it meant the federal taxes decreased then i could live with that.

 

The only reason the Federal government can afford them is because it increased the debt endlessly.

Constitutionally, the Federal Government doesn't have the power, States do.

All I'm saying.

 

To wgabrie: Hardly a revelation in light of the numerous attempts by the International community to lock Americans into paying a tax in one form or another by calling the tax something else. The enclosed article from 2006 mentions a few attempts. This excerpt is nothing more than the hard-to-kill Tobin tax:

Currency transaction tax (CTT). Most likely a tax of around .1 percent on each transaction generated through world financial institutions.

The Tobin tax is the granddaddy of them all. Tobin was a Keynesian. No surprise there.

More to the point, if you examine UN treaties you will find UN taxing authority hidden in the text. Once America ratifies a UN treaty the global government crowd locks Americans into non-existent International law. That’s why a UN treaty is the sweetest Catch 22 you ever saw. That is also why ratifying UN treaties is the number one priority for the New World Order.

July 27, 2006
United Nations' threat to all nations' sovereignty
By Bonnie Alba

"Money makes the world go around." The U.N.'s proposal to tax citizens around the world continues to be a thorn in the sides of successful and democratic economies. Almost annually our Congress writes into the Foreign Appropriations Bill a sentence or two prohibiting the U.N. from taxing Americans.

As Richard Rahn reported in the Washington Times, Rep. Ron Paul, Tx., has been warning the House for years about the U.N. global plan to tax all nations. According to Rahn, the House has recently passed a bill which "prohibits the Treasury from paying dues to the U.N. if it attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on U.S. citizens."

Jim Kouri, staff writer for the New Media Alliance, reported a new (airline ticket surcharge from $1.25 to $50) tax — Globalist French Pres. Chirac "pushed it through the French parliament and was backed up by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan." It is "being hyped by Globalists as the 'Solidarity Tax.'" The proceeds will go to the U.N. supposedly to aid underdeveloped nations.

U.N. critics see this as another globalist attempt to bring all nations into the "New World Order."

Now on the Senate table is the Inhofe-Nelson bill to "permanently" prohibit the U.N. from ever taxing U.S. citizens. Whether this bill passes depends on the number of "elected" globalists sitting in the Senate who advocate the selling of American sovereignty.

Remember: The United States and Japan together already prop up the U.N. by contributing over 40 percent of its annual budget. That money is your money. Also, the U.N. has no one over them for accountability. Note that without accountability, corruption soon sets in, as the many U.N. scandals and waste of money over the years attest to — the most recent being the "Oil for Food" scandal.

A July 13, 2006 U.S. Senate letter to Pres. Bush addresses the issue of the "solidarity contribution on airline tickets that is being promoted and even implemented." Also mentioned is a U.N. proposal contained in a book entitled "New Sources of Development Finance" which presents a 35 cent a gallon global gas tax "to generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year for international agencies and institutions."

The U.N. hopes to implement worldwide taxation, particularly of the wealthiest and most successful economies, to give aid to "developing" countries. These banana republic dictatorships have squandered most of the foreign aid provided over the years to help their people. Instead they line their own pockets thus preventing their countries from ever rising above the line of poverty and disease.

In addition to airline ticket taxes, a few examples of other proposed taxes by the U.N. and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (reported online at the Center for Individual Freedom):

E-mail. The Internet is like pirate treasure just waiting to be found. And the Globalists have plans for all e-mail users to pay $.01 for each megabyte of data that they send.

Fossil fuels — gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas.

Currency transaction tax (CTT). Most likely a tax of around .1 percent on each transaction generated through world financial institutions.

Aviation fuel. Levy to be placed on airline fuel costs.

Other tax proposals include taxes on conventional arms trade, ocean dumping, commercial fishing, Earth-orbiting satellites, use of electronic spectrum (TV, radio, cell phones, etc.) and many more.

At the same time, the proposed "redistribution of wealth" will only weaken the strongest nations and possibly destroy the Free Market. Does this sound familiar to you? Isn't this already happening on our home soil?

Despite all our internal problems and the internal-external War against the radical Islamic Terrorists, if we acquiesce to the U.N. plan to run the world under the guise of helping the poor and weak, there is one guarantee. Over time all nations would lose their national sovereignty to the U.N. which would end up performing as a Banana Republic Dictatorship through enforced collection of taxes. And accountable to no one.

CNN's Lou Dobbs asked a polling question: "Do you believe the United Nations should be allowed to have the power of taxation? Yes or no? The response was an overwhelming 95 percent voting no to the U.N. having authority to tax the world's citizens.

After reading the U.S. Senate letter, will Pres. Bush reject the U.N. worldwide taxation proposal outright and protect the Sovereignty of the United States and her citizens? Or, will he go along with the U.N. and place our nation in jeopardy for the future? What do you think he will do?

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/alba/060727

 

There's no need to kill the EPA. They provide a valuable service when it comes to hazardous sites that would overwhelm any state's resources. Like all the abandoned uranium mines in states like New Mexico. And clean-up of tainted soil and water supplies that became polluted in the days before industries were regulated. Dry cleaners alone account for a huge percentage of dangerous chemicals in the soil of small towns before proper hazardous disposal was a law. A federal agency is needed to oversee such huge projects to reclaim the land for the residents.

But like any govt agency, it's outgrown its usefulness. The amt of work always expands to meet the budget. EVERY state has its own environmental agency. EVERY major city also has an environmental dept.

The EPA only handles clean-up problems state & local offices can't.

Ron Paul's wrong... it doesn't need to be killed. Just carved back down to what it was created to do. And does well.

 

Probably because the EPA is a massive waste of tax payer money......

They do so many unneccessary (may I add costly?) things. I mean, if you want criticism of the EPA to die, the EPA needs to either ship up or ship out. Period.

 

is that how can the USA compete in a "globalized" world with the EPA thugs taxing emissions when third world countries do not? The EPA consists of a bunch of thugs that try to shakedown wimps at chemical companies. The managers always "hid me" (i.e. sent me to an all day meeting, training class) to avoid the inevitable confrontation that would ensue during my working days. Nowadays, I watch people like Eric Holder (and other incompetents like him) and laugh (really cry due to despair of the decline of the USA).

 

Many of the plant closures the last two years can be attributed to EPA regulations and the extreme cost the put on business just to operate. At this very moment the EPA is looking to destroy another industry that has been recycling waste oil into fuel and lubricants for years.

 

Please never again pretend to be an advocate of the Constitution.

That's another reason we don't need a federal one.

The creators of the disasters can clean it up by a court order. If not, they can be sent to prison. As for the mess, they can simply have them pay for the government to pay a private industry to do it.

They can't even pick up your trash effectively, Smart. I can't believe I'm having to convince a conservative that big government doesn't work. Then again, I suppose I can believe it.

 

Republicans don't want to open up all these agencies at the state level. They like centralized gov't as much as their twin party, the Dems. States would have far more money to do their jobs if the federal gov't took only as much as needed to fulfill their duties enumerated in the Constitution.

 

One of the problems I have as a conservative with this new "Constitutional Conservatism" movement is that it's seeks a minimalist Government that is simply unworkable in the modern day. A big, complex society is going to require big, complex government. The Government does a lot to lift the quality of life of millions of people and if it were to stop, the general quality of life in America would drop precipitously. The private sector isn't going to pick up unprofitable enterprises that, even though being unprofitable, serve the public good.

Also I don't like how the Ron Paul strain of libertarianism attempts to define itself what is and isn't Constitutional, and any decision by the Supreme Court opposite was somehow a shill for some type of conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned the USSC has done an excellent job as an institution over the last 223 years to maintain Constitutional integrity.

I've worked with the EPA on numerous occasions, they are a necessary organization. The problem comes not with the existence of the organization, but the use and abuse of it as a means of political gamesmanship and economic warfare against political opponents.

This happens all the time, but what happens in the case of defunct companies whose old mills and factories are rusting away and leaking dangerous toxins into the soil and water? Unfortunately it must fall on the public dime to clean that stuff up.

I dunno about you but my locality contracts with a local private trash handling service. They seem to do just fine.

 

Well one reason may be that global warming is fake so there is no reason to have the EPA. It just wastes money and puts regulations on businesses and people.

 

My friend, we are facing the crises we are facing today because so-called capitalists have sold their souls to the looters. You say that private industry is more efficient and is the means to innovation, then say that "big, complex government" is necessary to a "big, complex society" and that it somehow "boots the quality of life of citizens [by taking from other citizens]. You say that government should be small, but not too small. You have no principles, you have no reason for believing what you believe. You simply decide by arbitrary whim based on a petty cost-benefit analysis what side of the debate you will belong. You attempt to throw morality out of the window. When the liberals shout that you're being immoral, you give in.

And that's okay, but don't pretend you're a capitalist.

The language of the Constitution is very clear as to the powers of Congress. If Congress needs a new power, it can be changed. Saying that the Supreme Court cannot make a correct constitutional decision is like saying the President is infallible on public policy.

Argument from assertion.

Also known as the only useful purpose for unnecessary and wasteful government agencies.

Exactly what I suggested: Have the company pay for it. If they refuse, send them to prison and have the government contract to have a private company clean up the mess.

It's good to read posts before you respond to them

That's my point. A private trash handling service seems to do just fine.

 

The EPA puts the welfare of animals and plants over the needs of people to the point of being abusive. It's also prone to be used (especially by the treehuggers and the current admin) as a weapon for political agendas.

I objest to the OP's use of the word "hate" in projecting it to be Paul's sentiment.

 

Yes it would, but is that because it is actually necessary or because we have taken the easy way and become dependent upon it? There is no way to know if we would have developed a similar standard of living without allowing the government to grow beyond its constitutional bounds, but it is certain that we have given up much in terms of liberty, which lowered the one standard of living that matters most.

Another unprovable assertion. When something needs to be done people get it done, just not as quickly as those who insist on someone else doing it would like.

By and large you're right, but they are not infallible, they have reversed themselves, and some decisions they have made are undeniably political and/or based on personal conviction rather than constitutional.

The problem comes with the existence of an organization when it's creation is not allowed by law. To say they are necessary is a misstatement. To say some of what they do is necessary would be more accurate. It's misuse and abuse are grounds enough to dismantle it and try again.

Agreed, when the equipment is abandoned and the legal owner doesn't have the funds to do the job. But public dime doesn't mean federal dime. We have specific enumerated situations for that.

Are they federal?

 

Environmentalism in general is simply a vehicle (a wonderfully effective vehicle), for government, leftists, totalitarians of whatever stripe, to advance their agenda of government control over, and above the people.

Think about it - in the name of the environment, the government control and manipulate vast resources and dictatorial controls over the people. The arguments are simplistic, i.e. "you want to breath clean air, right"??? "you don't want Lake Erie to start on fire again, do you"??? It's for the chi'ren, trees are people too... whatever, lol...

In the end, it is about power, money, and control...

Ron Paul's point is more concerned with Constitutionality and freedom though... he is exactly right - the EPA, FDA, DEA, IRS, on and on... they pass arbitrary rules that have the force of law, and engage in all manner of activities that are simply not found in the Constitution.

Ron Paul is absolutely correct - shutter the EPA, and most of the other tri-lettered federal agencies that are bankrupting our country and destroying our freedom.

If you want those regulatory controls in you life... fight for them on the state level where they belong.

 

It's good to know a little about the subject before one forms such strong opinions.

You must've missed the part about the COMPANIES RESPONSIBLE BEING OUT OF BUSINESS. Can't get blood out of a turnip, you know? If there is a party that can be held responsible, the EPA has the power to take them to court and be reimbursed for the cleanup.

Do you think EPA employees do the actual cleanup? Of course they don't. Much like your trash hauling example, contractors do the work, EPA engineers & scientists oversee the work.

I'm definitely for smaller govt. But not at the expense of our health and children's futures. Let's start with the Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Labor. Cut their budgets in half. In fact, do the same thing with the EPA. Liberals are the ones who throw the baby out with the bathwater... no need to turn everything into another Obamacare fiasco.