Congress Must Fund EPA in Budget to Protect the Environment
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a crucial agency that works tirelessly to protect our air, water, and land from pollution and harm. However, its budget is often at risk of being cut by lawmakers as they create their annual budgets.
Members of Climate Hope Affiliates are urging Congress to fully fund the EPA in the upcoming fiscal year 2026 budget proposal. This would ensure that the agency can continue to carry out its critical work without disruption.
The Senate's version of the budget cuts the EPA's funding by just 5%, a relatively small reduction compared to other agencies. However, this is still too much for some advocates who believe that the EPA needs more resources to tackle the growing environmental crisis.
"By fully funding the EPA, we can ensure that our children and grandchildren have access to clean air and water," said Jeffrey Spencer, one of the letter writers. "We need Congress to take action on this critical issue."
Others are taking a different approach. Herb Swords, another letter writer, argues that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for the EPA's budget. He points to instances where government funds have been wasted or mismanaged in other areas.
Meanwhile, Mike Scott is calling for Trump's impeachment, citing his administration's handling of issues related to drugs and authoritarianism.
Finally, Arthur Straus questions Donald Trump's intentions on foreign policy, suggesting that he may try to use the Nobel Peace Prize as a way to appease Vladimir Putin.
These letters offer a glimpse into the diverse perspectives on current events in America today, from environmental issues to government accountability and foreign policy.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a crucial agency that works tirelessly to protect our air, water, and land from pollution and harm. However, its budget is often at risk of being cut by lawmakers as they create their annual budgets.
Members of Climate Hope Affiliates are urging Congress to fully fund the EPA in the upcoming fiscal year 2026 budget proposal. This would ensure that the agency can continue to carry out its critical work without disruption.
The Senate's version of the budget cuts the EPA's funding by just 5%, a relatively small reduction compared to other agencies. However, this is still too much for some advocates who believe that the EPA needs more resources to tackle the growing environmental crisis.
"By fully funding the EPA, we can ensure that our children and grandchildren have access to clean air and water," said Jeffrey Spencer, one of the letter writers. "We need Congress to take action on this critical issue."
Others are taking a different approach. Herb Swords, another letter writer, argues that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for the EPA's budget. He points to instances where government funds have been wasted or mismanaged in other areas.
Meanwhile, Mike Scott is calling for Trump's impeachment, citing his administration's handling of issues related to drugs and authoritarianism.
Finally, Arthur Straus questions Donald Trump's intentions on foreign policy, suggesting that he may try to use the Nobel Peace Prize as a way to appease Vladimir Putin.
These letters offer a glimpse into the diverse perspectives on current events in America today, from environmental issues to government accountability and foreign policy.
. I'm all for being frugal, but come on! Our planet is literally dying over here. A 5% cut might not seem like much, but trust me, it adds up when you're dealing with something as big as the environment 
.
. Can't we all just get along and try to solve our problems without drama? 
. Maybe then we can all focus on more pressing issues... like where I'm going to find my next great snack 
.
Back in my day, we didn't have all these fancy think tanks telling us what's good for the environment... we just knew it was bad to pollute. Now, I'm not saying they're not doing their job right, but come on, a 5% cut is still too much! What happened to those environmental activists from back in the '60s and '70s? They'd be out there protesting this day and age for sure. We need people like them now more than ever, I think... anyway, it's just frustrating that politicians can't agree on anything. 
A 5% cut to the EPA's budget might not seem like a lot, but trust me, every little bit counts 
. It seems like ppl are split on whether the EPA needs more funding or not 
. Some ppl think it's our responsibility to fund it, while others think we should prioritize other areas 
.
.
. Meanwhile, Herb Swords is right to question how gov't funds are being used 
. We can do this! 
". Let's keep our leaders in check and prioritize the little guy 
. Can't we just prioritize our future generations' well-being for once? 
. We need a strong EPA to tackle climate change & keep us safe! 
It's like, seriously polluted! And if we cut funding for the EPA, it's gonna be even worse. But then again, who doesn't love a good game of "let's cut funding for the thing that saves us"? 
Just kidding, sorta. I mean, come on, can't we all just get along and protect our planet for future generations? 
It's like, we're all in this together, right? And by the way, who needs more resources for the EPA when you've got Mike Scott calling for Trump's impeachment over... well, everything? 
should we be worried about some dude making a peace prize to score some points with russia or protecting our air and water? 
come on, congress! fund the epa already! 
I'm so over this constant debate about funding the EPA! 
Can't they just agree that our planet is worth protecting? 
But seriously, let's focus on finding common ground and working together to protect our planet 
I mean I get where some ppl are coming from tho, like, why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for some gov't agency? but come on, the EPA is trying to save us from ourselves here 
. And don't even get me started on Herb Swords and his whole "taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill" thing 
. I mean, we're talking about our air, water, and land here, not just any other government agency. It's like they think pollution is optional or something 
, like Jeffrey Spencer says, we gotta make sure our future generations have access to clean living spaces. And on the other hand, folks like Herb Swords think we should be more careful with our tax dollars 
, and Arthur Straus wondering if Trump's trying to use the Nobel Prize as a way to play nice with Putin 
And what's with the 5% cut tho? seems like a total waste of time if ur gonna cut it that little 
but others are just being dramatic as hell 