Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,038 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Bush Expects Taxpayers, Not Polluters, To Pay for Superfund

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000022.php

The Superfund account that pays for the cleanup of the nation’s most contaminated sites is due to run out of money sometime this year. But President Bush has yet to ask Congress to reinstate the tax on polluters to fund the account.

Bush is the only president since the Superfund was created in 1980 not to ask Congress to reauthorize the tax on polluting industries.

Once the Superfund trust fund runs out, taxpayers will have to cover the cost of cleaning up toxic sites created by industry. Past administrations have held that Superfund cleanups should be paid for by the polluters.

“I strongly believe that the funds used to pay for the program should be generated entirely through (taxes on industry), not the general Treasury,” President Ronald Reagan said in requesting an extension of Superfund fees and taxes on industry in 1985.

The Superfund program was designed to have polluters pick up the tab for cleaning up highly contaminated hazardous waste sites. If the source couldn’t be determined or had gone out of business, the cleanup was to be paid for from a trust fund – financed by an excise tax on the oil and chemical industries and a small environmental income tax on other corporations. But those taxes expired in 1995, when the Republican-led Congress refused to renew them. Hence, the trust fund is now almost out of money, according to Congress’s investigative arm, the General Accounting Office. When it runs out, likely later this year, taxpayers will be left with the bill.

According to the EPA, one of every four Americans lives within four miles of a Superfund site.

“These sites represent the legacy of decades of neglect,” Reagan said in 1985. “We, as a society, must address these serious health threats.”
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,364 Posts
This isn't from a news organization, or from a political group. I bet you slobbered on the keyboard Hamilton from drooling, when you seen this highly unbiased "opinion.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh yeah Hamilton, once again your agenda is showing.:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,944 Posts
So, what you guys are saying that it's best we let business do what it wants to our resources and then have US pay to clean up their mess. Wouldn't it be less expensive to prevent pollution at the source and make industry (who should know the best) at least consider alternative, clean means of production?
You guys aren't exactly 'agenda free'!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
No, that's not what I'm saying. I didn't say anything of the kind.

Never claimed to be agenda-free. I've been paying attention for the last 50-some years.

My point is that the wrangling over whether the taxpayers pay for cleanups or the company pays for cleanups is all political smoke and mirrors. The taxpayers pay for everything.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
That is the point I would have made enfield.
To say "big business" or "corporations" or a given "industry" should have to pay is misleading.
Consumers, shareholders, pension holders, and taxpayers will ultimately pay for any cost or regulation that "industry" must incur. We will pay tax breaks, we will pay more for goods and services, we will see our stock portfolio or pension take a dip for anything we try to stick "industry" with.
That does not make regulations wrong. It just does not makes sense to have an us versus them approach to these costs, because ultimately, it is all "us."

As far as my agenda? It certainly isn't defending Bush, as I am no big fan, but to cite a venomous anti-Bush site like "bushgreenwatch.org" and introduce it in the "Outdoor News" Forum as if it is actually straight news, is perhaps not entirely appropriate, in my humble opinion.
Perhaps it could at least be introduced in this forum as "commentary"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,364 Posts
Bushgreenwatch.org....hahahahaha....now that is one fair and balanced and objective news source where you'll get the straight scoop on what is going on with the enviornment. Industry hasn't paid their fair share for clean-ups in years, and to think this is something new just shows this groups political leanings.

This is an opinion piece, not news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,332 Posts
Although this isn't regarding the enviroment and who pays, maybe it will help with the idea's and statements and where these type of threads lead to:
Ex-Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neil claims that Bush was preparing to go to war as soon as he was elected. Even before 911. Know I know I read this article on CNN.com which doesn't report anything in a clear fashion, I'm sure O'Neil is just trying to sell copies of his new book, which will be filled with half truth's and no facts to back up his claims, he's also going to be on 60 mins. this evening, talk about a one sided show, always been one of my favorites anyhow, and who's really paying for the war in Iraq? What's really hard to believe is: well I think we all get the idea! To Hamilton Reef, a ton of thank yous for bring so much to the attention of the users of this site, and I don't care where the info comes, even if it's from the back of a box of cracker jacks ! Of course, even if it came right from the Prez's mouth, I'm sure there would be plenty of folks who would be the first to say,"He didn't say that, there's not facts, just half truth's, makes me shiver to think,etc.etc.etc. etc.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,021 Posts
It seems to me that by taxing the offending industries for the cost to clean up THEIR mess, they are put in a position where it is hopefully enough an economic penalty to deter similar actions in the future. It is also only fair that if the costs are to be borne by the public, let it be borne by those who use that companies products. If the company finds itself in an uncompetitive position because of the costs associated with cleaning up their mess, so be it. Perhaps other companies would see that trashing the environment isn't a good long term business plan. To pass on the cost to clean up mess to the tax paying public, while the offenders walk away with all the ill gotten profits from environmental responsibility would be ridiculous.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
True Paul: there is value to an example being set. I also agree that we attach the cost as closely as possible to the source of pollution.

I would just hope we take an intelligent approach to the balance between our competing desires: We want a pristine environment and we want full employment and we do not want to lose market share to countries who do not have our regulations and we want our toys and we want inexpensive products and we want our stock portfolios to go up and so on.

Informed consumers may be the best weapon against polluters in the long run. The more important the environment ranks compared with other desires, the more likely people will buy goods and services from companies that pollute less.
 

·
Smells like, Victory!
Joined
·
27,939 Posts
40 High-Priority Superfund Sites Cleaned Up
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY NOVEMBER 4, 2003

Dave Ryan, 202-564-7827 / [email protected]

Forty high-priority hazardous waste sites across the country were cleaned up in fiscal year 2003 (Oct. 2002 - Oct. 2003), EPA announced today. To date, EPA has cleaned up 886 sites on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). These sites are considered some of the highest health threats in the nation.

"The cleanup of contamination at these 40 sites is indicative of the continued progress the Superfund program has made over the years," said EPA Acting Administrator Marianne Lamont Horinko.

"We still face serious challenges because we still have much work to do at our remaining sites," she continued. "Although we currently have 699 construction projects underway at 436 sites, many of these sites tend to be large, expensive, and complex."

To help meet these challenges posed by the large, complex sites, the President requested a $150 million increase in the Superfund budget for Fiscal Year 2004.

The majority of Superfund site clean-ups are conducted by private parties responsible for the contamination, under EPA control and pursuant to EPA enforcement actions. Historically those have represented about 70 percent of all clean-up activity. As of last year, EPA has secured more than $20 billion in cleanup commitments from polluters.

EPA's other Superfund activities in fiscal year 2003 included:

Committed $292 million for long-term cleanup construction work;
Proposed for public comment 14 new sites to the NPL, and placed 20 on the final NPL, making them eligible for long-term remedial action federal funding (The NPL now contains 1,243 final sites.);
Committed $142 million to conduct short-term emergency actions at 381 sites to remove immediate threats to human health; and
Led the debris recovery effort for the Columbia space shuttle disaster, in which EPA and its partners retrieved 84,800 pounds of material -- almost 40 percent of the total dry weight of the shuttle.

Oh oh! Seems to be 2 sides to every story. DOH!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,038 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
We had our WL-PAC meeting last night. I'm V-Chair and have been involved with this "Hooker" case for over 20 years. This summer cleanup effort was very cooperative with the companies involved with the cleanup. This is only one example of why I and others have been fighting for the Superfund funding. Be sure to check out the Michigan Superfund list. You may be surprised.

White Lake 'Dead Zone' cleaned, but poison remains

A quarter-century after it began, the Hooker Chemical Co. cleanup is entering the homestretch.

But it's a homestretch that could last hundreds of years.

The completion of a $5 million project to dredge the White Lake "dead zone" leaves just one more item on Dallas-based OxyChem's cleanup checklist -- DNAPL.

It stands for Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid and it means buried poison, in this case the dangerous chemical hexachlorocyclopentadiene (C-56).

http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1074183337281150.xml

Check out your area:
Michigan Superfund Sites
http://www.cqs.com/super_mi.htm
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top