An internal debate on the EPA

     A couple of weeks ago, a Buchtelite writer authored a story about the EPA. Instead of actually discussing, at length, the factual debate being held in Congress when discussing the function and regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Balsinger took the opportunity to make some outrageous statements about the political party that he apparently disagrees with. Not only was his argument in support of the EPA misleading and rarely factual, his politicization of the topic was beyond disheartening.


                  A couple of weeks ago, a Buchtelite writer authored a story about the EPA. Instead of actually discussing, at length, the factual debate being held in Congress when discussing the function and regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Balsinger took the opportunity to make some outrageous statements about the political party that he apparently disagrees with. Not only was his argument in support of the EPA misleading and rarely factual, his politicization of the topic was beyond disheartening.

I would like to agree that the EPA is not entirely evil. It does do some good things like making sure that our drinking water is safe and our children are not eating lead-based paint chips. However, it has been well documented that they have been authorized by President Obama to expand their regulation power.

Last year, a Democrat-led Congress kicked the Cap and Trade bill out of its halls without a winning vote. This bill would have allowed carbon dioxide regulation to become the law of the land. Instead, Obama allowed the EPA to begin regulating the gas instead, which completely bypasses the Congressional vote to do just that. The fact that Congress can do nothing about this is just one example of how the EPA has been able to gain power that the Republicans are talking about. This shows that there may be cause for concern, and the topic needs to be debated one way or another.

The most disturbing trend in Mr. Balsinger’s article was his over-the-top hyperbole. He began his piece by stating, The Republicans are at war and they’re attacking America on every possible front. He then followed up by saying that the GOP constituency is ignorant and that Republicans do not care about industries like fishing and tourism because of their love for big business.

What any of that has to do with the EPA is a question that I would love to have answered. It is clear that his intent was not to persuade those with differing opinions than his own. By issuing personal attacks on anyone with a different worldview, you tend to not gain their audience, thus your argument is weakened.

We have just been through a semester in which we were asked to Rethink Race, celebrate diversity of all kinds and tone down violent rhetoric that could lead to tragedies. Maybe these lessons were lost on Mr. Balsinger, but I would welcome him to revisit these topics and avoid inane namecalling.