Have you heard the one about the EPA having to furlough most of its 17,000(!) employees? No? I first heard it described on the radio this morning as "non-essential" government employees being out of work, in case of a shutdown.
So, I says to myself, "Self? Why do we even have a term "non-essential" government fill-in-the-blank?" If it's "non-essential," why are we payin' for it? Or going into debt for it, as is more likely the case? Seems that right there says a lot about the putrid, necrotic bloat of the current state of government.
The only question that really matters though is, what will the Republican squishes have to say about all those "non-essential" workers out of work? National tragedy? Or a good start?
My response to this?
Speaking at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, EPA chief Gina McCarthy said that a potential government shutdown “will mean that EPA effectively shuts down.”
The EPA is in the middle of a number of regulatory actions that could be affected by a government shutdown. On Friday, the agency proposed to set a limit on carbon emissions from coal and natural gas power plants. Also last week, it published a report laying out its authority to regulate brooks, streams and other small bodies of water.
So, what's the bad news?
Shut 'er down.