Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
The Environmental Protection Agency has once again become the target of spending cuts in Washington. A plan by House Republicans to significantly reduce funding for the agency has drawn criticism from House Democrats concerned about environmental protection. But what effect does the EPA’s budget have on environmental quality? Do increased EPA budgets result in direct improvements in environment quality, or does it unnecessarily increase the size and scope of the agency?
Consider the figure above, which shows that since 1980, the EPA’s budget (adjusted for inflation) has remained relatively flat, yet air quality has continually improved. Ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide have declined by 51%, sulfur dioxide by 76%, carbon monoxide by 80%, and lead by 93% (data here). As Joel Schwartz described recently in PERC Reports, fine particulate levels have also declined by 42% and peak ozone levels have fallen 30%. Such data suggest that increasing the EPA's budget, as the Administration has proposed, will increase bureaucracy but not necessarily air quality.
The EPA sets national air quality standards, so the agency decides when its own job is finished. Despite such improvements, the EPA has never declared the air safe and continues to push for more funding, more employees, and more regulations. The EPA is just one of many examples of where cutting budgets can reduce spending and bureaucracy without reducing environmental quality.
Terry Anderson is the president of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a nonprofit institute dedicating to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets. Shawn Regan is a research fellow at PERC.
TARIFFIED: Trade Talk with Matthew Rooney
This week, trade relations between the U.S. and India are continuing to escalate. Earlier this month, the U.S. stopped granting India special trade privileges by taking away the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, and India has responded by enforcing more tariffs of its own. The George W. Bush-SMU Economic Growth Initiative Director Matthew Rooney breaks down the trade conflict: For more information on trade groups and the global economy, visit www.bushcenter.org/scorecard.
How Trade Spreads Holiday Cheer
It is projected that the average American household will spend more than $1,000 during the holidays this year.
Deporting Salvadorans May Lead to Economic Decline
We should think carefully about a policy whose major impacts are likely to be reductions in employment and economic activity here at home, and increased instability and lawlessness along our borders.
Bush Institute's Laura Collins Talks Immigration on Good Morning Texas
Last week, Deputy Director of Economic Growth at the George. W. Bush Institute Laura Collins spoke with Good Morning Texas about immigration myths. During the interview, Collins had the opportunity to set the record straight and address common misconceptions about legal immigrants living in America today. The segment was inspired from facts released earlier this fall by the Bush Institute in the third edition of America's Advantage: A Handbook on Immigration and Economic Growth. Watch the full Good Morning Texas interview here.