Can you imagine a world where two things could be true at the same time: RFK cares about environmental toxins, and RFK cut a department that was meant to deal w

Can you imagine a world where two things could be true at the same time: RFK cares about environmental toxins, and RFK cut a department that was meant to deal with lead posioning? I don't know if this was something he pushed for, but let's assume it was. Could there still be a reasonable cause to cut that department? A lot of people assume if you oppose the Do Good Things act, that you must be a bad person. Was this department getting results? It was spending roughly 750k per full time employee per year (based on the 150M for 200 full timers from the article). Was it working? It could have been, it also could not have been. Maybe this was an actually bad decision made by an actually bad man. But previous coverage of him has taught me to take anything reported about him with a very large grain of salt.