logo
Your Turn: The real waste in Pennsylvania government

Your Turn: The real waste in Pennsylvania government

Yahoo04-04-2025

In a remarkable moment at the Feb. 27 House budget hearing for Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, state Rep. Josh Kail, R-15, Brighton Township, declared it 'outrageous' that citizens, including his constituents, have the right to petition DEP for a change in environmental rules.
Acting Secretary Jessica Shirley explained that DEP's 'rulemaking' process allows everyday people to ask for a new rule or repeal an existing one. And if a citizen's petition is backed by scientific data, it can merit review by the DEP's rulemaking body, the Environmental Quality Board.
Shirley also explained that EQB's review includes legislative touch points and consent, as well as legislators among its members.
Evidently. too fixated on degrading the democratic process to listen, Kail then delivered a textbook non sequitur, stating that since DEP rulemaking includes 'absolutely no legislative input,' the agency's time spent in rulemaking is 'wasted.'
His claim is both erroneous and authoritarian.
Kail's performance red-flags whether he understands or even cares what a legislator's job requires under our constitution. How can any legislator call listening to everyday citizens a waste of time when the heart of being a legislator is to hear and represent constituents' needs?
More so, why would any legislator be outraged (or even pretend to be, as Kail's thespian muscle-flexing suggested) at a lawful, 40-year-old process designed to ensure public input – a process our Legislature wrote and passed and understood to be protected by the First Amendment?
Then comes the biggest question of all: Do we – as a country of, by, and for the People – continue to elect legislators who want to take power from us?
Or do we refuse to elect legislators who call our voices a 'waste?'
That Kail tried to shame the DEP for working with the People to create regulations is in itself shameful. Under the pretense that time spent addressing the People's petitions is fiscal squandering, Kail named three such petitions to exemplify his point: One for joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), one for increasing security bonds for oil and gas wells, and one for establishing mandatory set-backs for oil and gas wells.
Given that all three petitions would bring hundreds of millions in income and savings to Pennsylvania, characterizing time spent on them as fiscally irresponsible is a farce. If Kail actually listened to the People, his feigned fiscal concerns would be relieved.
Although the RGGI matter started from a rulemaking petition, when Gov. Tom Wolf signed an executive order requiring DEP to join RGGI, the petition was set aside. But this cap-and-trade program of CO2 would have brought in an estimated $443 million in income to be spent only on clean air initiatives such as monitoring and constraining polluting facilities. If Kail could imagine how much his constituents, who are plagued by carcinogenic emissions from thousands of oil wells, need DEP to step up and protect them, he might be able to help legislate the funding DEP needs to do so.
Or is that funding a waste?
The well-bonding petition asked oil and gas companies to post higher bonds before drilling a well. The current bond amount is $2,500, which creates zero incentive for companies to plug wells at a cost of about tens of thousands of dollars per well. It's a business no-brainer to default on the bond, rather than spend twenty times more to plug a well. So that defaulting leaves Pennsylvanians with the public health and environmental wreckage, while taxing them for the massive cost of plugging up to hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells. While Pennsylvania is currently fighting for $300 million in federal funding to plug wells, the People's well bonding petition simply proposed raising bonds to about $38,000.
Is such a proposal really a waste?
Finally, the setbacks petition seeks a common-sense mandate that oil and gas wells not be built too close to waterways and buildings. Currently, health-harming wells can be and are built only 500 feet from buildings such as schools and hospitals. Instead, this People's petition asked DEP to base these distances on scientific research by requiring
Set-backs of 5,280 ft from any building 'serving the vulnerable' (schools, hospitals).
Set-backs of 3,281 ft from any building or drinking water well.
Setbacks of 750 ft from any waterway.
Is Kail l saying that protecting our children, our elderly, our infirm, is a waste? Is protecting our drinking water a waste?
Any citizen who values their voice should scorn Kail's disingenuous performance on Feb. 27 and his audacious inclination to snatch away our power to develop and shape regulations.
The right to hold Kail accountable rests especially with the People of his 15th District, which includes Shell's massive pollution-spewing plastics plant, along with half of Washington County – the most fracked county in Pennsylvania.
The real waste in our state government is not time spent on the DEP rulemaking process. It's time spent by lobbied legislators in selling out the government of, by, and for the People to the petrochemical industry.
Terrie Baumgardner is a resident of Aliquippa and Clean Air Council's Outreach Coordinator for Beaver County.
This article originally appeared on Beaver County Times: Opinion: The real waste in Pennsylvania government

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'
Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'

News24

time15 minutes ago

  • News24

Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'

A court on Thursday put a temporary stay on Donald Trump's latest effort to stop foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, as the US president's battle with one of the world's most prestigious universities intensified. A proclamation issued by the White House late Wednesday sought to bar most new international students at Harvard from entering the country, and said existing foreign enrollees risked having their visas terminated. 'Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' the order said. Harvard quickly amended an existing complaint filed in federal court, saying: 'This is not the Administration's first attempt to sever Harvard from its international students.' '(It) is part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' READ | 'Such a disgrace': Outrage as Trump ramps up attacks on Harvard, Columbia US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thursday ruled the government cannot enforce Trump's proclamation. Harvard had showed, she said, that without a temporary restraining order, it risked sustaining 'immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties'. The same judge had already blocked Trump's earlier effort to bar international students from enrolling at the storied university. The government already cut around $3.2 billion of federal grants and contracts benefiting Harvard and pledged to exclude the Cambridge, Massachusetts, institution from any future federal funding. Harvard has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and 'viewpoint diversity'. Trump has also singled out international students at Harvard, who accounted for 27% of total enrolment in the 2024-2025 academic year and are a major source of income. In its filing, Harvard acknowledged that Trump had the authority to bar an entire class of aliens if it was deemed to be in the public interest, but stressed that was not the case in this action. The president's actions thus are not undertaken to protect the 'interests of the United States' but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard. Harvard filing Since returning to office Trump has targeted elite US universities which he and his allies accuse of being hotbeds of antisemitism, liberal bias and 'woke' ideology. Trump's education secretary also threatened on Wednesday to strip Columbia University of its accreditation. The Republican has targeted the New York Ivy League institution for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, throwing all of its federal funding into doubt. Unlike Harvard, several top institutions - including Columbia - have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration.

'You've lost your damn mind': Republicans cringe at feud between Trump and Musk
'You've lost your damn mind': Republicans cringe at feud between Trump and Musk

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'You've lost your damn mind': Republicans cringe at feud between Trump and Musk

WASHINGTON – Republicans in Congress could only cringe as a feud between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk spilled into the public eye, with their sweeping tax legislation at the center of it. "I've had a lot of love and respect for you for what you've done for this country over the last several months, but you've lost your damn mind," Trump ally Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, said to Musk. The tiff began earlier this week when Musk, newly departed from the administration, called Republicans' sweeping tax bill a "disgusting abomination" because it is expected to increase the federal debt by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. But it escalated into an all-out war over the course of a few hours on the afternoon of June 5, after Trump said in Oval Office remarks that he is "very disappointed" with Musk's comments and suggested he wanted to kill the bill to keep electric vehicle tax credits that benefit his company Tesla. Musk said Trump wouldn't have won a second term without the quarter of a billion dollars he spent on his 2024 campaign. Trump suggested going after Musk's companies and their federal contracts. And then Musk alleged that Trump's name was in the Justice Department's files related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. "Now (Musk is) calling for his impeachment. I mean, it's just going off the deep end," said Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tennessee. And some Republicans who had been raising concerns about the package's price tag welcomed Musk's criticism of GOP spending, avoiding commentary on the rest of the billionaire's posts. "Elon is not wrong that we should go further, and I've said that all along," said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas said. "It would have been nice if he would have spoken up three or four weeks ago when we were in pitched battle over here in the House." Democrats watched the feud unfold with glee. "This is like the Real Housewives of Foggy Bottom," quipped Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Florida, referencing a Washington, D.C. neighborhood near the White House and lobbyist hot spots. However, Republicans said they weren't concerned that the spat would make it harder for them to pass their signature bill, which would extend 2017 income tax cuts and pour more money into border security while implementing new restrictions on Medicaid and food stamps. "Every tweet that goes out, people are more lockstep behind President Trump and (Musk) is losing favor," said Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Oklahoma. "I've talked to Elon Musk, he's super smart. I think this has gotten to a personal vendetta." Congressional Republicans also suggested they're not scared about Musk's threat to primary lawmakers who voted for the bill in the House – which is all but three of them. "I think a Republican who is in a primary who is endorsed by Trump and opposed by Musk can feel very comfortable," said Rep. Nick LaLota, R-New York. Contributing: Joey Garrison. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'You've lost your damn mind': Republicans cringe at Trump-Musk feud

'Big, Beautiful Bill': When Will the Senate Vote on Trump Legislation?
'Big, Beautiful Bill': When Will the Senate Vote on Trump Legislation?

Newsweek

time34 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

'Big, Beautiful Bill': When Will the Senate Vote on Trump Legislation?

Based on factual reporting, incorporates the expertise of the journalist and may offer interpretations and conclusions. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump is working to push his "big, beautiful bill" through the Senate in the face of resistance from some Senate Republicans and increasing criticism from Elon Musk. Republicans hold slender majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, meaning that only a few lawmakers can rebel and vote against the bill without threatening its chances of passing: Republicans hold 220 of the 435 seats (with two vacancies) in the House and 53 of the 100 in the Senate. Some of those lawmakers have already raised serious concerns about the bill—more in the Senate than in the House, where the bill passed by just one vote—which has put its passage in doubt. While the Senate can theoretically pass the bill at any time—meaning it accepts the House version as is—it is highly unlikely to pass it any sooner than July 4th, which is already a very ambitious timeline for the chamber, as Republicans remain divided on several aspects. What Is the 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? Congress has the power of the purse, meaning funding and spending at the various agencies across the government must receive approval from both chambers. Normally, each agency and congressional committee submits separate bills that receive approval, but Trump is eager to enact his significant financial and social policy reformations. Trump urged congressional Republicans to pass one bill that includes all the funding he needs to enact his raft of various policies, including major tax reforms—including the permanent extension of his 2017 tax cuts and new deductions for tips, overtime pay, car loan interest and more. The bill will also raise the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap to $30,000 and introduce savings and investment accounts for children born during his second administration. The spending proposal also includes a major overhaul of Medicaid—including work requirements for recipients above the poverty line—and restrictions on services, such as cutting any funding for child gender-affirming care and nonprofits that provide abortion services. Changes to education and student loan funding are also included in the bill, like heightened eligibility requirements for Pell Grants and increased taxes on private university endowments. The "big, beautiful bill" features a $150 billion increase in the Department of Defense budget as well. U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks to reporters outside the White House on June 4 in Washington, D.C., while President Donald Trump, inset, is pictured in the State Dining Room at the White House... U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks to reporters outside the White House on June 4 in Washington, D.C., while President Donald Trump, inset, is pictured in the State Dining Room at the White House on June 5. More //When Did the Bill Pass the House? The House of Representatives passed the bill on May 22 by one vote, 215-214, as two Republicans—Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio—voted along with the Democrats against the bill. Representative Andy Harris of Maryland voted "present," while Representatives David Schweikert of Arizona and Andrew Garbarino of New York did not vote at all. What's the Senate's Time Frame for a Vote? Congress was meant to pass a budget bill by mid-March to avoid a government shutdown but had to settle for a "continuing resolution," giving lawmakers until the end of September to pass a budget. With the thin margins, the Senate voted and passed a measure to allow them to use reconciliation, which allows Congress to pass its budget bill with a simple majority rather than the usual two-thirds. Despite that considerable time frame, Trump has suggested that the Senate should pass the bill by July 4th, playing into the president's love of patriotic displays and tying his policy decisions into nationalism—such as calling the day he announced his reciprocal tariffs "Liberation Day." What Has Musk Said About the Bill? Musk has lashed out against the bill since he left the Department of Government Efficiency, not only lambasting the fiscal plan but those who voted in support of it. Among his various posts in the past couple of days, Musk has written on X: "False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" "Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." "In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!" "Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store