A couple of weeks ago, the journal Nature wrote that Stephen Johnson should step down from his post at the EPA (Nature 452, 2; 6 March 2008). Commenting on the unlikelihood of that, Nature suggested that since the White House "doesn't want the [EPA] to do anything" for the environment, "we can only offer [EPA] employees a fantasy...shut it down until next January. Take some fully paid sabbatical time to relax, and prepare for a return to the old-fashioned protecting of the environment that so many of you joined the agency for."
It seems the EPA thought that a grand idea. Stephen Johnson heads to Australia on a two week trip with about eleven staff. Of course Johnson's travel plans infuriate Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who wrote a letter to Stephen Johnson, demanding to know where the travel budget was coming from:
"I am deeply concerned that you will be spending a large amount of scarce agency funds and staff resources on such an expensive trip while the President has proposed a series of devastating cuts in EPA's budget for environmental programs....hundreds of millions of dollars from EPA's budget for such important activities as reducing pollution of streams and lakes by sewage treatment plants, cleaning up hazardous waste sites, conducting global warming research and programs, ensuring environmental justice, and carrying out many other crucial programs."
The letter advised: "If your goal is to learn about actions to address global warming, I suggest that you visit California, which has moved ahead aggressively with greenhouse gas controls". She noted that Johnson's trip coincided with a number of hearings the EPW scheduled for him during the month of April. Let's see -- on one hand, Byron Bay and scuba-diving in the Great Barrier Reef; on the other, being interrogated by Senator Barbara Boxer. Why would Johnson choose Australia?
It's nice to see someone paying attention to the decimation of the federal government's role in protecting our national resources. It would be easier to swallow if I believed that the administration was gutting the agency's role to promote limited government and a more frugal bureaucracy. It's the opposite, however, as you often have reported: the federal government has bloated, and the increased spending generally falls under the mantle of increased spending to serve not-so-special corporate interests. Truly Orwellian, the government agencies seem to be staffed with true believers who spend money to subvert the public interest they were created to serve.
I am still hopeful, to return to the famous Lincoln saying - you can't fool all the people all the time. Americans have shown they are (sometimes, eventually) capable of punishing leaders who betray their trust, a comeuppance is long overdue for the pillaging, plundering rulers of our country. I'd like to see this Administration locked up.
Thanks for your comment. Fortunately, there's a lot of others paying attention too!