The EPA Needs Liberal Support, Not More Republican Policy

Sep 02 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

I’ve found myself defending President Obama more often than I’d like, but now that he has pulled back his proposed improved smog standards, I’d like to know if we could find a liberal to run for President in 2012 election.

When President Obama didn’t push for a single-payer option during the health care debate, I said he was trying to be pragmatic. He wanted to get the best deal passed that he could, knowing that resistance from Republicans and moderate Democrats would be too much to overcome.

When President Obama extended all of the Bush tax cuts, I said he was trying to be pragmatic. He didn’t want to eliminate the cuts for the middle class and poor even though he believed that the bulk of the tax cuts were a detriment to the economy.

When President Obama continually moved to the right during the debt-ceiling debate, I tried to convince myself that I thought he was being pragmatic. It was a little more difficult since he was yielding to the Republicans before the debate even began, when the American people were squarely behind him, and when it was clear that the Wall Street portion of the Republican party was simply not going to allow the government to default.

Even then, though, I found myself talking about Obama being pragmatic and being the only adult in the room.

I’m not doing that now–not this time.

Overruling the EPA’s effort to compel states and communities to reduce pollution or face federal penalties is simply a case of a Democratic President taking a Republican position on an important environmental issue. This is especially risky when the EPA is already facing a full assault by the Republican party.

The EPA needs liberal support, not more Republican policy.

Air pollution control is not about politics. It’s about the safety and health of American citizens, and we know enough by now to understand that Republicans in general prefer the health of a businessman’s wallet to the health of an American citizen. That’s more true today–when social security is practically considered socialism–than it’s ever been in the past.

President Obama took this position on his own accord, not out of a need to compromise with unreasonable Republicans.

I have never understood  the connection between government environmental regulation and the economy. I don’t decide to feed my family dog food because it’s going to strain my wallet (hurt my personal economy) rather than buy actual food that costs more money. That’s not an option.

Part of being a corporate citizen is ensuring that, while you make your  profits, you are not harming the environment or the health of U.S. citizens. Doing otherwise should not be an option.

I’m beginning to wonder if there are any qualified liberals willing to run for President.

6 responses so far