The stated goals of the EPA are as follows:
Goal 1: Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality Goal 2: Protecting America’s Waters
Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
Goal 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
Goal 5: Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing Laws and Assuring Compliance
The sated mission of the Energy Department is as follows:
The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.
So, let's see how the nominees for these two cabinet level positions match up with 'their' agencies' goals.
Scott Pruitt, as Attorney general (AG) of Oklahoma, has been at odds with the EPA for much of his time as the AG. He states on his Linked In page, that he is “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda”. he has a law suit currently pending against the EPA. Not looking too good, eh? pruitt is documented as being closely aligned with the fossil fuel industry. he is on record as questioning the validity of research findings that carbon emissions are causing climate change. To be truthful, what this author would like to do, in my fantasies, is to chain pruitt inside a smoke belching stack of a coal fired plant, or secure his mouth over the tail pipe of a car and see how well he fairs. Not that I'm suggesting that we forget the greenhouse effect that carbon emissions cause, thus raising the temperature around the globe, but let's just talk about air quality. Which does this shmock think will make for good air quality, solar arrays & wind mills, or smoke belching power plants.
Also, the trump transition staff announced pruitt is “an expert in Constitutional law”. pruitt is on record as saying ,“Obama’s gone too far. If Congress is not acting, he thinks he can act in their place…Unconstitutional.” Now I'm not a lawyer, but I believe I have a good grip on the Constitution. The way our government was set up was for the Supreme Court to be the arbiter between the legislative and administrative branches. If the legislative branch believes that the President has exercised powers that are not hers or his to use, the proscribed recourse is through the Supreme Court. A President is not doing anything Unconstitutional just because an individual says so. The Supreme Court is the only entity in this country that can make that determination. This guy has a long way to go to prove to me that he understands the Constitution.
Truth be told, what he was doing with that statement was throwing food to the sheep. The sheep love hearing words like 'Constitutional' or 'Unconstitutional' in relation to what they want. The sheep believe, in their heart, that if someone says one of those words from a position of authority, then it's true.
The quotes, referenced above are from a Washington Post aricle:
rick perry, former Governor of Texas; he's much easier to explain. When running for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, perry said, during a debate, that The Department of Energy was one of three departments he wanted to "dismantle". Whoaaa doggy (a little Texas talk). It is not difficult to imagine that this guy will do all that he can to at the least 'hamstring' the very agency he has been nominated to lead. Amongst the many types of energy that the Department of Energy regulates is nuclear power, nuclear waste and an aging nuclear weapons arsenal. Hey ....... let's just get rid of this department. That would "ensure America's security".
These are the two people that would, if trump has his way, lead these two critical agencies that work to ensure Americas security and well being. In essence these two departments perform a basic Constitutional function, "promote the general Welfare". Are these good choices, I don't think so!
No comments:
Post a Comment