4 ms·

Fortunately, the actual spending decisions are made by Congress, so the content of the President's proposed budget doesn't matter.

24gttghh 9y ago
Fortunately? Congress is a bit of a double-edged sword in that regard...
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Quite true. But if you are concerned about the EnergyStar cuts, it is fortunate because they are not likely to happen.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    I wish I could share in your confidence. Have there been a number of bi-partisan congresspeople who have express support for EnergyStar and other efficiency programs?
    - thehardsphere 9y ago
      Generally, spending for every program goes up every year. "Cuts" as typically talked about in the press are reductions in the already planned increases. Very few things are ever cut in real terms, and usually only in reaction to some significant embarrassment (e.g. Alternative energy research funding with Solyndra). Nobody cares enough about EnergyStar to cut it, so I doubt it will be cut. It made it through the last time Congress was under Republican control totally unmolested, so I really doubt anybody is going to bother with it now.
emodendroket 9y ago
I think "don't worry; the Republican-controlled Congress will not cut funding on environmental initiatives" sounds like a bit of a pollyannaish proposition.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Well, they didn't cut this particular program during the Bush years when the Congress was under Republican control also. That, and generally Republicans tend to do far less cutting than they say they are going to. They talk about it to get votes, but they rarely actually follow through. Again, see the last time they had control of Congress, when spending was considered to be through the roof when the deficit was only $187 billion. And, that was when they could actually manage to pass legislation, unlike the current mess they're in right now. So, no, it's not actually me being Pollyannaish at all. I'm being extremely cynical. I think they're basically lying about wanting to and they're too incompetent to manage it even if they did want to.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I'd say there's a difference between reducing spending overall, which I would agree they don't do (even Trump's budget in large part is about significant increases to military spending, for example), and reducing spending on particular causes, which I don't think is so far-fetched.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Can you tell when the US had a Democrat controlled Congress by looking at this global greenhouse gas emissions per year chart? I can't. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... I'm not saying there's no reason to worry, but there's also no reason to pretend that having the Democrats move pollution overseas solves global problems.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    The Democrats are basically Republicans-lite and have been for decades but that's neither here nor there with regard to the point I'm making.
    - enraged_camel 9y ago

24gttghh 9y ago

Fortunately? Congress is a bit of a double-edged sword in that regard...

thehardsphere 9y ago
Quite true. But if you are concerned about the EnergyStar cuts, it is fortunate because they are not likely to happen.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  I wish I could share in your confidence. Have there been a number of bi-partisan congresspeople who have express support for EnergyStar and other efficiency programs?
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    Generally, spending for every program goes up every year. "Cuts" as typically talked about in the press are reductions in the already planned increases. Very few things are ever cut in real terms, and usually only in reaction to some significant embarrassment (e.g. Alternative energy research funding with Solyndra). Nobody cares enough about EnergyStar to cut it, so I doubt it will be cut. It made it through the last time Congress was under Republican control totally unmolested, so I really doubt anybody is going to bother with it now.

emodendroket 9y ago

I think "don't worry; the Republican-controlled Congress will not cut funding on environmental initiatives" sounds like a bit of a pollyannaish proposition.

thehardsphere 9y ago
Well, they didn't cut this particular program during the Bush years when the Congress was under Republican control also. That, and generally Republicans tend to do far less cutting than they say they are going to. They talk about it to get votes, but they rarely actually follow through. Again, see the last time they had control of Congress, when spending was considered to be through the roof when the deficit was only $187 billion. And, that was when they could actually manage to pass legislation, unlike the current mess they're in right now. So, no, it's not actually me being Pollyannaish at all. I'm being extremely cynical. I think they're basically lying about wanting to and they're too incompetent to manage it even if they did want to.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I'd say there's a difference between reducing spending overall, which I would agree they don't do (even Trump's budget in large part is about significant increases to military spending, for example), and reducing spending on particular causes, which I don't think is so far-fetched.
Consultant32452 9y ago
Can you tell when the US had a Democrat controlled Congress by looking at this global greenhouse gas emissions per year chart? I can't. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... I'm not saying there's no reason to worry, but there's also no reason to pretend that having the Democrats move pollution overseas solves global problems.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  The Democrats are basically Republicans-lite and have been for decades but that's neither here nor there with regard to the point I'm making.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago