Scott Pruitt is having all sorts of problems, his security in his first year cost the EPA well over 3 million.
He is the head of a government agency charged with protecting human health and the environment. but he is dismantling that agency. Two of the aides he brought with him from Oklahoma, just handed in...
Best answer: Scott Pruitt is having all sorts of problems, his security in his first year cost the EPA well over 3 million.
He is the head of a government agency charged with protecting human health and the environment. but he is dismantling that agency. Two of the aides he brought with him from Oklahoma, just handed in their resignations and he had given them a huge pay raise through a loophole in the safe drinking water act. The act allows hiring people in the case of an emergency, but contacting a business on behalf of his wife, who wanted to open a franchise, is hardly an emergency.
As for lead, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and that he wants to be seen to do the right thing there. His problem is that he saw the need for a soundproof phone booth in his office and wants to us to believe he wants to do away with "secret science". His staff at the EPA are suing him to produce evidence for his AGW denial.
I understand that living in Washington is expensive, I am not complaining that he is enlisting his staff to help find him an apartment, a mattress, or that he dines in the White House mess more than he should. What I do have a problem with is his conspiracy theories and his dismantling of the EPA.
Most business owners will do the right thing and environmental regulation is there to allow the honest businesses to be able to compete on a fair basis with the unscrupulous, who are willing to cut corners and have no care if people get hurt. Those regulations need to be enforced or they are meaningless. JimZ is complaining about this regulation, but dismantling the EPA is just dumb. Remember that the EPA was created in part because the Cuyahoga river was so polluted that it "caught fire". I also dislike paperwork (with a passion), but I understand why it is needed.
This has nothing to do with left wing, right wing politics, a reasonable person would agree that pollution is bad, even if you disagree with the scientific community. One would even expect that conservatives would be all for protecting the environment and do so with a passion, while progressives would be less enthusiastic. Right now it is the progressives that are proposing (half heart-ed) measures while the conservatives busy themselves denying the science.