Insane Federal Budget Cuts!
#1
03-07-2011, 09:12 AM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 4,861
Insane Federal Budget Cuts!
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/04/fi.../?ncid=webmail
Hard-fought-for laws and regulations to save lives and the environment will be gutted or eliminated in budget cuts passed by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives or ordered by President Barack Obama's team, experts say.
Public health and environmental experts say it's indisputable that lives will be lost if these cuts are made:
1) The Consumer Product Safety Commission. The commission is scheduled next week to roll out its long-awaited public database on the safety of consumer products. For the first time, it will allow shoppers to quickly determine whether products they own or plan to buy are associated with safety hazards or recalls.
But the cuts strip funding for this database and would gut the commission's provision that will require manufacturers to have their products safety tested by an outside firm.
A CPSC spokesman told AOL News that commission Chairman Inez Tenenbaum says the new database is vital to consumer safety and, barring a government shutdown, it will be launched on March 11. However, money will have to be found to keep the database current.
2) Poison Control Centers. The House budget slashed 93 percent of the money used to operate 57 of the country's poison control centers even though accidental poisoning remains one of the top causes of unintentional death in this country.
The role of these centers goes well beyond offering guidance to parents frantic over what to do when their children eat something potentially dangerous, or victims of snake and spider bites and food poisoning. The centers offer the nation's only real-time data-collection program and in the past offered vital data on the 2010 H1N1 flu pandemic and the health impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. And recently the centers were the first to raise the alarm about the toxic effects of synthetic marijuana and dangerous products marketed as bath salts.
"Poison centers detect public health threats as they emerge," said Dr. Alvin Bronstein, medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center. "America will lack a key tool in detecting biological, chemical and other developing threats to public health."
3) The Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA could have a third of its funds eliminated by the House. Among other things, the proposed cuts could prevent:
"If this bill becomes law, and we see a spike in the number of children diagnosed with asthma, brain cancer and other serious health problems, the folks who pushed this plan through should be partially to blame," Cook added.
Edwin Chen, federal communications director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told AOL News that the cuts are "nothing less than a brazen and unprecedented assault on public health. This attack on clean air, fresh water, open space and wildlife won't take a nibble out of our deficit, but it will take the teeth out of needed protections.
"Polluters would be allowed to spew mercury into the air we breathe, arsenic into the water we drink, and municipal and agricultural waste into the watersheds that nourish our land."
4) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA would receive an 18 percent cut in its spending budget from the House bill, which would result in approximately 8,000 fewer workplace-hazard inspections.
"It is irrefutable that these drastic budget cuts will result in the deaths of workers in construction sites, refineries, factory floors and on fishing boats deep at sea," Celeste Monforton, a national lecturer and worker safety investigator at George Washington University's School of Public Health, told AOL News this week.
"Increasing worker safety happens at a glacial pace, and these rash actions will instantly gut much-needed safeguards to keep workers alive," said Monforton, a former top official with the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
5) The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. Neither agency was spared from debilitating cuts, experts say, threatening the safety of he nation's food supply and preventing the agencies from even doing specifically what Congress and the Obama White House had demanded.
Glen Stubbe, Minneapolis Star Tribune / MCT
Beef carcasses at the Cargill beef plant in Fort Morgan, Colo., are disassembled into smaller pieces for shipment to restaurants and retail outlets. Amid cuts to the USDA, inspectors will have more meat and poultry to inspect next year.
Obama's budget did not grant additional funds requested to meet White House and congressional demands to assure the safety of meats and monitor foreign-produced food arriving at our ports. Programs for federal meat inspection, international food safety inspection and state food safety inspection were hit hard, for safety experts said.
"We are cutting programs not because we want to, but because we have to," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who then added, "American families have been forced to tighten their belts, and government must do the same."
Food safety advocates say the cuts will endanger the food supply.
Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch, told AOL News that the cuts make no sense and points to an expected 500 million-pound increase in the amount of beef and poultry slaughtered this year.
"The president cuts the resources for meat inspection, even while admitting that USDA inspectors will have an increased amount of meat and poultry to inspect next year. It also fails to give the FDA enough resources to put the newly passed food safety reform bill into effect on schedule," she said.
Sponsored Links
USDA rules say that meat cannot be released for market without the presence of a USDA inspector.
Without the funding, the agency has no plans to supplement the number of inspectors in these processing plants to meet to higher volume of meat.
This means that the speed of slaughter lines will increase, as will pressure on already overworked inspectors. The obvious result is the likelihood of bad meat and poultry showing up in groceries and butcher shops, said Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch's executive director.
Hard-fought-for laws and regulations to save lives and the environment will be gutted or eliminated in budget cuts passed by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives or ordered by President Barack Obama's team, experts say.
Public health and environmental experts say it's indisputable that lives will be lost if these cuts are made:
1) The Consumer Product Safety Commission. The commission is scheduled next week to roll out its long-awaited public database on the safety of consumer products. For the first time, it will allow shoppers to quickly determine whether products they own or plan to buy are associated with safety hazards or recalls.
But the cuts strip funding for this database and would gut the commission's provision that will require manufacturers to have their products safety tested by an outside firm.
A CPSC spokesman told AOL News that commission Chairman Inez Tenenbaum says the new database is vital to consumer safety and, barring a government shutdown, it will be launched on March 11. However, money will have to be found to keep the database current.
2) Poison Control Centers. The House budget slashed 93 percent of the money used to operate 57 of the country's poison control centers even though accidental poisoning remains one of the top causes of unintentional death in this country.
The role of these centers goes well beyond offering guidance to parents frantic over what to do when their children eat something potentially dangerous, or victims of snake and spider bites and food poisoning. The centers offer the nation's only real-time data-collection program and in the past offered vital data on the 2010 H1N1 flu pandemic and the health impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. And recently the centers were the first to raise the alarm about the toxic effects of synthetic marijuana and dangerous products marketed as bath salts.
"Poison centers detect public health threats as they emerge," said Dr. Alvin Bronstein, medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center. "America will lack a key tool in detecting biological, chemical and other developing threats to public health."
3) The Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA could have a third of its funds eliminated by the House. Among other things, the proposed cuts could prevent:
- Protecting the public from ravages of mountaintop mining.
- Allowing the public to review offshore drilling permits.
- Prohibiting oil companies from getting exemptions to the Clean Air Act when drilling in the Arctic.
- Protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
"If this bill becomes law, and we see a spike in the number of children diagnosed with asthma, brain cancer and other serious health problems, the folks who pushed this plan through should be partially to blame," Cook added.
Edwin Chen, federal communications director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told AOL News that the cuts are "nothing less than a brazen and unprecedented assault on public health. This attack on clean air, fresh water, open space and wildlife won't take a nibble out of our deficit, but it will take the teeth out of needed protections.
"Polluters would be allowed to spew mercury into the air we breathe, arsenic into the water we drink, and municipal and agricultural waste into the watersheds that nourish our land."
4) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA would receive an 18 percent cut in its spending budget from the House bill, which would result in approximately 8,000 fewer workplace-hazard inspections.
"It is irrefutable that these drastic budget cuts will result in the deaths of workers in construction sites, refineries, factory floors and on fishing boats deep at sea," Celeste Monforton, a national lecturer and worker safety investigator at George Washington University's School of Public Health, told AOL News this week.
"Increasing worker safety happens at a glacial pace, and these rash actions will instantly gut much-needed safeguards to keep workers alive," said Monforton, a former top official with the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
5) The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. Neither agency was spared from debilitating cuts, experts say, threatening the safety of he nation's food supply and preventing the agencies from even doing specifically what Congress and the Obama White House had demanded.
Glen Stubbe, Minneapolis Star Tribune / MCTBeef carcasses at the Cargill beef plant in Fort Morgan, Colo., are disassembled into smaller pieces for shipment to restaurants and retail outlets. Amid cuts to the USDA, inspectors will have more meat and poultry to inspect next year.
Obama's budget did not grant additional funds requested to meet White House and congressional demands to assure the safety of meats and monitor foreign-produced food arriving at our ports. Programs for federal meat inspection, international food safety inspection and state food safety inspection were hit hard, for safety experts said.
"We are cutting programs not because we want to, but because we have to," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who then added, "American families have been forced to tighten their belts, and government must do the same."
Food safety advocates say the cuts will endanger the food supply.
Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch, told AOL News that the cuts make no sense and points to an expected 500 million-pound increase in the amount of beef and poultry slaughtered this year.
"The president cuts the resources for meat inspection, even while admitting that USDA inspectors will have an increased amount of meat and poultry to inspect next year. It also fails to give the FDA enough resources to put the newly passed food safety reform bill into effect on schedule," she said.
Sponsored Links
USDA rules say that meat cannot be released for market without the presence of a USDA inspector.
Without the funding, the agency has no plans to supplement the number of inspectors in these processing plants to meet to higher volume of meat.
This means that the speed of slaughter lines will increase, as will pressure on already overworked inspectors. The obvious result is the likelihood of bad meat and poultry showing up in groceries and butcher shops, said Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch's executive director.
#2
03-07-2011, 11:45 AM
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 12,236
Our government makes all these "budget" cuts, yet I wonder how many of these officials making these cuts are over paid. Not to mention, I wonder how much money we're still spending on the war(s) in the Middle East....
Don't get me wrong, I support the troops and wish them well and I am NOT advocating shorting them on the supplies to do what they need to do... I feel we the people were lead into supporting this movement in the middle east for a mixture of reasons (good and bad) that we've been there for years and seem to be coming back empty handed (except for lots of body bags). I feel the U.S. presence in the middle east should be decreasing (bringing troops home) as we've been spending countless dollars with no end insight and at this point, I'm not even sure we have a goal or objective anymore. I don't want to say "budget cut", but if we are able to reduce the troops needed in the Middle East, I am sure there can be a shift in allocation of some of those "budget" dollars.
I know in my state, discussion was made about SB5 that is being railroaded through the system. The bill is being forced through without proper evaluation and will greatly affect public safety with Police/Fire/EMS services.
Don't get me wrong, I support the troops and wish them well and I am NOT advocating shorting them on the supplies to do what they need to do... I feel we the people were lead into supporting this movement in the middle east for a mixture of reasons (good and bad) that we've been there for years and seem to be coming back empty handed (except for lots of body bags). I feel the U.S. presence in the middle east should be decreasing (bringing troops home) as we've been spending countless dollars with no end insight and at this point, I'm not even sure we have a goal or objective anymore. I don't want to say "budget cut", but if we are able to reduce the troops needed in the Middle East, I am sure there can be a shift in allocation of some of those "budget" dollars.
I know in my state, discussion was made about SB5 that is being railroaded through the system. The bill is being forced through without proper evaluation and will greatly affect public safety with Police/Fire/EMS services.
#3
03-07-2011, 12:13 PM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 4,861
God for bid politicians get a pay/benefit/perks cut. Gotta keep those pockets lined with cash so you can take it from the people. And there are plenty of nonsense programs and expenses out there that can easily be cut, we all know it. I am so glad I don't eat meat. Can you imagine what these cuts are going to do and it will affect so many other things connected to those things. Amazing how backwards society has become.
#4
03-07-2011, 12:32 PM
Hi `Lisa,
The more I read about our government and their programs, the more it frustrates me. There just seems to be so much waste & duplications. Has it become too large for them to account for the ways they are spending our taxes, our money ? I write them, or email them my concerns, but I don't think they are listening to the people, or the people are to busy trying to survive to get involved in what our government is doing ? I do believe that many will protest when there programs are cut....
It seems we have more takers, then givers 4-Sure
It's not a pretty story, but it was a good article, and thanks for sharing and hopefully make us all think ?
Maybe ?
I shall pray ~> Hope ~> Speak `Out
The more I read about our government and their programs, the more it frustrates me. There just seems to be so much waste & duplications. Has it become too large for them to account for the ways they are spending our taxes, our money ? I write them, or email them my concerns, but I don't think they are listening to the people, or the people are to busy trying to survive to get involved in what our government is doing ? I do believe that many will protest when there programs are cut....
It seems we have more takers, then givers 4-Sure
It's not a pretty story, but it was a good article, and thanks for sharing and hopefully make us all think ?
Maybe ?I shall pray ~> Hope ~> Speak `Out
#5
03-07-2011, 01:59 PM
The state of the union is in complete disarray, and it has been that way for decades. The increasing national debt & deficit, the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, the fiasco of Afghanistan, the deregulation of financial institutions (which in part caused the latest financial struggles that nearly bankrupted this country), the irresponsible tax cuts to the rich, politicians selling to the big corporations (leaving the common folks to fend for our-selfs) and the disinformation campaign fed to the majority of the voting people by unscrupulous radio and tv fear mongers (leading to misinformed voters), among others, have left the US of A in shambles.
Nothing short of a revolution will fix these problems.
Nothing short of a revolution will fix these problems.
#6
03-07-2011, 04:52 PM
The cuts aren't enough... we're over spending by I think 1.5 trillion dollars...
Hey, heres the thing... someone got to go. Something, somewhere... maybe it's me and education... maybe it's federal subsidies to higher education, maybe some social security and medicare benefits have to be cut.... that's 50% of the budget. Defense is 20%.. to make any budget cut, you've got to cut social security, medicare, and defense... together they're over half hte budget. Foreign aid amounts to like 1/5th of a percent. At the rate we're going, in like 50 years, 92% of our budget will go to paying interest on our debt...'
If you want a visualization of what I'm saying... heres what your budget cuts are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE
We've been living beyond our means too long... time to pay the piper.
Hey, heres the thing... someone got to go. Something, somewhere... maybe it's me and education... maybe it's federal subsidies to higher education, maybe some social security and medicare benefits have to be cut.... that's 50% of the budget. Defense is 20%.. to make any budget cut, you've got to cut social security, medicare, and defense... together they're over half hte budget. Foreign aid amounts to like 1/5th of a percent. At the rate we're going, in like 50 years, 92% of our budget will go to paying interest on our debt...'
If you want a visualization of what I'm saying... heres what your budget cuts are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE
We've been living beyond our means too long... time to pay the piper.
#8
03-07-2011, 06:07 PM
SS needs to be revamp, I can't say how but the current system leaves the people currently paying into it, paying for the current beneficiaries. When they paid into the SS the COL was a lot lower than it is now. At least SS is good until 2037 but, regardless, needs fixing.
The defense budget, on the other hand, is in need of some serious cuts: Weapons that have become obsolete before they even made it to our armament; vehicles, from air to land, that don't meet current specifications and are actually dangerous to use in the war theater; just to name a few.
But cutting into the welfare, education or subsidies for the poor is negligent in the least, and down right murderous for some in real need. How about eliminating the middle man, (health insurance co.) and creating a system like the original Obamacare, not this joke of a system that's going to start in 2014.
The defense budget, on the other hand, is in need of some serious cuts: Weapons that have become obsolete before they even made it to our armament; vehicles, from air to land, that don't meet current specifications and are actually dangerous to use in the war theater; just to name a few.
But cutting into the welfare, education or subsidies for the poor is negligent in the least, and down right murderous for some in real need. How about eliminating the middle man, (health insurance co.) and creating a system like the original Obamacare, not this joke of a system that's going to start in 2014.
#9
03-07-2011, 06:28 PM
i agree with montyss02 it is going to be to the point where the people will have to take back our country the millitary brothers as well as civilians i see will be in the next revoling party and will say wtf did you do to my country at the steps of the house the senet and the white house. making all leaders to get out of office and get new ones that will do a better job with half of what the elected leders make.
#10
03-07-2011, 08:15 PM
The first things that needs to happen for us to take back our country is to have the rich pay their fair share of taxes, have these so called "American" corporations stop shipping jobs overseas, have the executive/legislative/judiciary start working for the people instead of the ubber rich/corp. that pay their campaigns and vacations. We need to tell Washington that we, the people, are the special interest, not the upper 2% rich.