Assignment 2-Part 1

• Obama 2011 budget request: EPA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020101669.html

Appendix: EPA full budget
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-proposal/agency-by-agency/budget_2011_epa.pdf


This article shows the perspectives of Barak Obama, Democrat on the environmental policy for clean air by two dimensions; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s total budget and the amount of funding about each program of EPA. According to Vig (2009)’s book, agency budgets are an important part of institutional capacity which affect the extent to which public policies could help to enhance environmental quality, and we can understand the influence or viewpoint of the president on the environmental policy.

The Environmental Protection Agency's budget which increased by 34 percent last year would receive slightly decreased funding in fiscal 2011-from $10.3 billion in 2010 to $10.02 billion next year. However, this budget cut made within the Obama’s tenure is very small and not big to argue that his original approach that environmental problem is top priority and substantial government intervention to the problem is required was changed. On the other hand, the spending of EPA substantially (about 35 percent) declined from 1980 to 2008 in programs such as air pollution control and (about 150 percent) in programs such as land management (Vig, p.16). Especially, during the 1980s, from the mid to late of 1990s and by the Bush administration in the 2000s, the budget reduction was very massive. Taken as a whole, the budget of EPA in the Obama administration relatively very increased in comparison to above period. This budget trend reflects his intention to procure sufficient resources in order to successfully implement the designed environmental policy.

Also, according to the article, “the budget would boost funding for several programs in which the EPA has shown a newly aggressive tone in the past year. It includes $43 million in new funding for efforts to reduce greenhouse gases to threat public health under Clean Air Act”. Namely, Obama as a Democrat is emphasizing to increase the budget for clean air that can improve the public health together.

Obama’s stance on the budget issue is very contradictory to the reaction of Bush, Republican who pursued to decrease funding for environmental programs out to 2013 even before the economic downturn of 2008. The Bush did not prioritize the environmental problem rather than economic development and security. The EPA budget cut that Bush administration presented in 2002 was 6.4 percent and the cut about environmental programs was 8 percent, the largest reduction among all budget section (Vig, p. 87).

I agree to Obama’s approach that clean air can ensure the public health in that environment sector is connected to other domains such as welfare or the quality of life, and the overall expansion of the budget for EPA and environmental programs should be accomplished. This budget change may be flexible because the funding increase of all environmental programs can bring about budget shortage to other sectors of government or tax burden. Therefore, the funding expansion for Chesapeake Bay can be adjustable.