The Fiscal Year 2009 Budget: Spending your taxes even before you pay them

In response to Bush’s recent 2009 budget proposal, Grist has analyzed what impacts it will have on the environment. In their first report appropriately titled, “Bush: the uncompassionate, anti-technology president”, and a side article titled, “A Spend in Need”, Grist detailed some of the attributes of Bush’s new FY09 energy budget.
Aside from discussing which areas will receive boosts or cuts in funding, one main issue brought up was the budget’s provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. This provision, although it has no real chance of passing once it is given to Congress, shows Bush’s ill-mannered outlook on our environment. He is aware that the provision will not pass, but still includes it. Knowing that he is a proponent of the drilling, and considering our discussion about his tendency towards singing notes, it scares me to think that he could effectually give the order to begin drilling. On the other hand, this type of drastic action would almost certainly bring a lawsuit against his precious signing notes and he would most likely want to fight that battle on an issue more important to him (terrorism and the surveillance system perhaps).
The budget concerned with the environment received some helpful boosts, but also a few unusual and poorly timed reductions. One positive was the increase in clean coal funding. This specialized coal that has a higher efficiency and lower gas output than normal coal is becoming a widely used product and is a necessity for our future. Another positive boost came in funding for air-pollution mitigation. We are often concerned primarily with our future emissions and fail to remember that we already have a polluted ozone that could use our aid. A negative impact has come about as a result of two contradicting budget policies: transit funding received a boost while plug-in hybrid research experienced a cut. Mass transit is something we already know how to accomplish (and it seems we simply need to take action) Congressmen are willing to provide the funding, but they might be more skeptical about giving funds to the hybrid research program due to a lack of affordable results. Other reductions were felt by hydrogen research and water infrastructure. Either these are seen as already adequate, or Congressmen do not believe they are a priority at the moment. For them, and for their budgets, it’s best to wait until there is a problem to solve it. It would seem wasteful to constituents if the Congressman proposed legislation dealing with something that currently seems to be working fine.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, had the oversight of the budget dealing with the Department of Energy and sent out a recent email praising some increases in basic research, but also criticizing Bush on several points. One potential problem came from the cutting of funds for hydropower, energy research, and industrial energy efficiency. Bingaman’s argument pointed out that if we are to live in a future where we impose a tax upon carbon emissions, it is important to boost the industries that will provide alternative means of energy. He believes that the cuts will cause the industries involved with those alternative areas to become weakened in a time when many will be looking to them for the next source of energy.
Another problem Bingaman saw in the proposed budget was the complete zeroing out, or elimination, of the DOE’s weatherization programs. The weatherization assistance programs aid low income families by increasing the efficiency of their dwellings and reducing their energy expenditures (an amount that would otherwise make up about thirteen percent of low income budgets). Bingaman points out that the programs would provide an additional 85,000 homes with upgrades, and each of those upgrades would in turn provide needed construction jobs. A very insulting remark and parody was given in relation to the impact upon lower income families that I felt a need to share: “What does Bush say to poor people who are trying to keep warm in the face of record gas/oil prices (driven by his failed policies): ‘Let them burn cake!’” Although this likening of Bush to Marie Antoinette is over the top, it still served as an amusing anecdote to Bingaman’s point.
Bush also proposed an elimination of research funding for oil and natural gas. Companies that deal in oil and natural gas have been able to improve their methods because of outside research, but a cut in research funding would eliminate programs that make the breakthroughs. Without these outside programs, the companies would be unwilling to fund their own research, and any further studies would be abandoned.
Overall, the budget’s aid to environmentally relevant departments shows an attempt at being environmentally proactive; which is a step up from several years ago. Congressmen have recognized the issue and are doing what they can in their busy schedules to help it. For now, that might be all we can ask of them.