December, 18 2009, 03:55pm EDT
Drinking Water Regulations Should Ban Unsafe Chemicals From Entering Public Systems
"The latest New
York Times article in its "Toxic
Water" series continues to detail the consequences of the Bush
Administration's poor record on safeguarding the nation's water and highlights
the immediate need for the Obama Administration to protect this critical public
resource. Though the article calls on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to update the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring the regulation of hundreds of
chemicals increasingly entering our water supplies, much more is needed to
protect our waters on the front end of this process.
WASHINGTON
"The latest New
York Times article in its "Toxic
Water" series continues to detail the consequences of the Bush
Administration's poor record on safeguarding the nation's water and highlights
the immediate need for the Obama Administration to protect this critical public
resource. Though the article calls on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to update the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring the regulation of hundreds of
chemicals increasingly entering our water supplies, much more is needed to
protect our waters on the front end of this process.
"Water supply preservation requires a considerable
number of new initiatives to regulate these chemicals -- or remove them to a
level safe for drinking -- but it also requires government to prevent the
contaminants from entering our water in the first place. Industry
has been allowed to discharge potentially harmful chemicals into our water
supplies, leaving the public to clean up the mess. Today, more than 60,000
chemicals are used within the United States. The government should ensure they
are safe before permitting their use by industry.
"Without
additional funding, water and sewer systems cannot meet more stringent
standards, even if they are authorized to do so by law. Based on EPA's
final arsenic rule, it could cost an additional $700 million nationally to set the arsenic standard to the lowest
feasible level, and without
federal support, the typical household served by a small community water system
could have to pay an extra $400 or more a year. As standards become
increasingly stringent, we must work to ensure that the resulting treatment
costs do not force families off public water systems.
"The Safe Drinking Water Act should be updated and additional
funding should be allocated for water infrastructure. Despite this need, bottled
water remains a bad alternative to tap water, as studies have demonstrated
significant contamination in bottled water as well. Bottled water has a negative environmental impact and is
exorbitantly expensive. For residents who are concerned about water quality, we
recommend using a filter as a much better alternative to bottled water.
"We need to pass H.R. 3202, the Water Protection and Reinvestment
Act, which would create a dedicated source of funding to help public utilities
meet important new quality standards. With a renewed federal commitment,
we can improve our water systems and protect public health to ensure safe,
clean and accessible water for all communities."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dirty and Dumb!' Trump May Cancel Contracts to Electrify USPS Fleet
"It's stuff like this that will cost us manufacturing jobs/opportunities," warned one critic.
Dec 06, 2024
As part of President-elect Donald Trump's mission to roll back the Biden administration's climate policies, the Republican may cancel contracts to electrify the U.S. Postal Service's fleet, Reutersrevealed Friday, citing unnamed sources familiar with transition team discussions.
"The sources told Reuters that Trump's transition team is now reviewing how it can unwind the Postal Service's multibillion-dollar contracts, including with Oshkosh and Ford for tens of thousands of battery-driven delivery trucks and charging stations," according to the news agency.
The USPS in December 2022 announced a five-year $9.6 billion investment that involved electrifying 75% of its next-generation delivery vehicles and installing modern charging infrastructure. That came just months after President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which included $3 billion in funding for the endeavor.
Ford did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment on Friday, while Oshkosh said that it "is fully committed to our strong partnership with the USPS and looks forward to continuing to provide our postal carriers with reliable, safe, and sustainable modern delivery vehicles, even as USPS' needs continue to evolve."
The USPS also did not respond to requests for comment and Trump transition team spokesperson Karoline Leavitt declined to address his Postal Service plans, only saying that "President Trump will protect the freedom of Americans to drive whichever vehicle they choose, enhance his tough tariffs on Chinese-imported cars, and save the U.S. auto industry for generations to come. No policy should be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump."
During the campaign, Trump pledged to roll back Biden's climate policies if Big Oil poured $1 billion into getting him elected. He also attacked the Democrat's efforts to promote a shift to electric vehicles (EVs). Transportation accounts for the largest portion of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and the United States is the world's top historic emitter.
Even under Biden, U.S. plans to limit planet-heating pollution did not align with the country's contributions to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency—but climate scientists and advocates widely backed his and later Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign leading up to last month's election, recognizing the threat posed by Trump.
John Hanger, a Democrat who previously held various envirnomental and energy positions in Pennsylvania's government, responded to the Reuters reporting on social media: "Ugh! Canceling contracts to electrify transportation of USPS would be dirty and dumb!"
Meanwhile, Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said that "it's stuff like this that will cost us manufacturing jobs/opportunities."
Some critics also speculated whether such contracts may be redone to benefit Tesla. The company's CEO is Elon Musk, who is the richest man in the world, dumped around $270 million into super political action committees backing Trump's reelection bid, and is set to co-lead his forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.
Last month, Reuters reported on the Trump transition team's plans to kill Biden's fuel efficiency standards and a $7,500 consumer tax credit for EV purchases, which Musk was asked about while he and Ramaswamy were on Capitol Hill Thursday to meet with Republican lawmakers.
"I think we should get rid of all credits," Musk told reporters—despite his own company's reliance on Biden's EV policies.
Responding to Musk's comment in a Friday statement, Will Anderson, EV policy advocate with Public Citizen's Climate Program, said that "as someone who's asking to work for the American people through his so-called DOGE, Musk should not perpetuate crony capitalism that only benefits himself and others with access to Trump."
"If we want the American automobile industry to stay competitive in a global market," he added, "then not only should Musk recognize the benefit of the EV tax credit for American-made vehicles, but he should also recognize the negative impact billions of dollars in continuing oil and gas subsidies will have on a society that needs to transition to a zero-emission and clean-energy future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
CBO Provides 'Stark Preview of Healthcare Under Donald Trump'
Millions of Americans could lose coverage if the GOP allows the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits to expire.
Dec 06, 2024
As Congress negotiates the extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits, a nonpartisan government analysis warned this week that letting the ACA subsidies expire next year would cause millions of Americans to lose health coverage in the years ahead.
The American Rescue Plan Act "reduced the maximum amount eligible enrollees must contribute toward premiums for health insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, and it extended eligibility to people whose income is above 400% of the federal poverty level," wrote Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Phillip Swagel.
His Thursday letter came in response to an inquiry from U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) along with Reps. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) about "the effects on health insurance coverage and premiums that will result from not extending—either for one year or permanently—the expanded premium tax credit structure."
"Without an extension through 2026, CBO estimates, the number of people without insurance will rise by 2.2 million in that year," Swagel said. "Without a permanent extension, CBO estimates, the number of uninsured people will rise by 2.2 million in 2026, by 3.7 million in 2027, and by 3.8 million, on average, in each year over the 2026-2034 period."
"Without an extension through 2026, CBO estimates, gross benchmark premiums will increase by 4.3%, on average, for that year," the director continued. "Without a permanent extension, CBO estimates, gross benchmark premiums will increase by 4.3% in 2026, by 7.7% in 2027, and by 7.9%, on average, over the 2026-2034 period."
"If Congress fails to act, healthcare will become out of reach for millions of Americans, leaving middle-class families to struggle and choose between seeing a doctor or keeping a roof over their heads or groceries in the fridge."
The analysis comes as the world braces for GOP control of Congress and the White House, with President-elect Donald Trump set to be sworn in next month. Since President Barack Obama signed the ACA—also known as Obamacare—in 2010, elected Republicans including Trump have repeatedly tried to gut or fully repeal the law.
In response to the CBO report, Wyden said, "This is a stark preview of healthcare under Donald Trump: higher insurance premiums for families who buy health coverage on their own, and more uninsured Americans who can't afford health insurance at all."
"Republicans have an opportunity to end their ideological crusade against the Affordable Care Act and work in a bipartisan manner to make healthcare more affordable for working families, but instead they seem poised to hand another big tax break to corporations and the wealthy," warned Wyden, the outgoing Senate Finance Committee chair.
In September, Shaheen and Underwood introduced a bill to make the ACA's enhanced premium tax credits permanent. Shaheen said Thursday that the "new data from CBO confirms what we feared: if Congress fails to extend these tax credits, healthcare costs will skyrocket for millions of families and 3.8 million Americans will lose coverage entirely."
"At a time when Americans are already facing higher prices, we should do everything we can to lower costs when and where we can," she added. "It's time we pass my Health Care Affordability Act to permanently extend the tax credits so many families rely on."
Advocacy groups echoed demands for Congress to at least extend the subsidies following the CBO's findings.
"If Congress fails to act, healthcare will become out of reach for millions of Americans, leaving middle-class families to struggle and choose between seeing a doctor or keeping a roof over their heads or groceries in the fridge," said Protect Our Care executive director Brad Woodhouse in a statement.
"Instead of helping hardworking families, Republicans have opposed measures to lower healthcare costs and have instead focused on delivering tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest Americans," he continued. "Health coverage gives people peace of mind knowing they won't go bankrupt over an injury or illness. Democrats stand ready to extend the tax credits to ensure everyone has access to affordable healthcare. It's time for Republicans to get on board."
While the CBO found with the expiration of the credits, "on average, those with health insurance will see their unsubsidized gross monthly premiums increase by as much as 8% each year," Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, pointed out that "for people who now receive premium assistance, the increases will be far steeper."
"Taking into account the cuts in premium assistance, nonpartisan organizations, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, report that people will experience estimated premium increases ranging from 41% to 218%, with a median increase of 91%—a near doubling of their monthly costs," he explained.
"For nearly 20 million Americans, these enhanced tax credits have been the difference between getting access to the healthcare and coverage they need or going without it," Wright stressed. "At a time when so many families are struggling to pay for the basics, these tax credits have been a literal lifeline for millions of people to get healthcare they can afford."
"Voters just made it clear in the 2024 election that they want action to lower costs—and so it would be cruel to have the result be inaction that allows these tax credits to expire, and monthly healthcare costs to jump," he added. "For many millions of working Americans, premiums will double. For some, the spike will be not just hundreds but thousands of dollars of additional costs, leading many millions to lose coverage altogether. Congress must protect the health and financial security of our nation's families right now by extending these critical tax credits."
Citing several unnamed sources, The Washington Postreported Friday afternoon that Democrats on Capitol Hill privately proposed a deal to extend the ACA subsidies by a year, which "accompanied a broader package of healthcare proposals submitted to Republicans on Thursday night ahead of year-end spending negotiations."
"It is not yet clear whether Republican leaders, who control the House, will agree to any of the proposals," the Post noted. "Spokespeople for Republicans on the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees declined to comment."
Despite efforts to salvage the ACA subsidies due to the pain and economic suffering that would follow if they are not extended, progressives across the board continue to argue that Obamacare—which sends billions of federal dollars to the private insurance industry—is a far inferior solution compared with Medicare for All, which would cover everyone in the United States at a lower overall cost than the current system.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular