Success: EPA set to reduce staff 50% in Trump's first term

The Environmental Protection Agency, seen by President Trump as a bloated bureaucratic whale, is on schedule to fulfill his promise to reduce its staff nearly in half by the end of his first term mostly through retirements, not cuts, according to officials.
The EPA Tuesday provided to Secrets its first year staff results which show that the agency is below levels not seen since former President Reagan’s administration.

And if just those slated to retire by early 2021 leave, Administrator Scott Pruitt and his team will have reduced a staff of nearly 15,000, to below 8,000, or a reduction of 47 percent.

“We’re proud to report that we’re reducing the size of government, protecting taxpayer dollars and staying true to our core mission of protecting the environment,” Pruitt said in a statement to Secrets.

Several agencies have succeeded in making some cuts, but EPA is taking a lead.

The numbers:

• As of January 3, 2018, the EPA has 14,162 employees.
• The last time EPA was at an actual employment level of 14,440 was in fiscal year 1988 when Reagan was president.
• 23 percent of EPA employees can retire with full benefits and another 4 percent can retire at the end of 2018.
• Additionally, another 20 percent of EPA employees will be eligible for retirement in the next five years.
• Taken together, 47 percent of the EPA will be eligible to retire with full benefits in the next 5 years.

Said an EPA official, “We're happy to be at Reagan-level employment numbers and the future retirements shows a preview of how low we could get during this administration. It would be fair to say anywhere from 25 to 47 percent of EPA could retire during this administration.”

Pruitt has used buyouts to spur some of the changes and attractive retirement benefits have also led many to leave the agency. He also instituted a hiring freeze.

Under Pruitt, the agency has gone the “back to basics” of protecting the environment while shucking former President Obama’s political agenda focused heavily on climate change.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/su...rticle/2645362

Several other agencies need to be cut as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter1469

Several other agencies need to be cut as well.

---

I agree but we probably disagree in which areas. I kinda believe in science. I think much of the waste is in the administrative areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trish

The Environmental Protection Agency, seen by President Trump as a bloated bureaucratic whale, is on schedule to fulfill his promise to reduce its staff nearly in half by the end of his first term mostly through retirements, not cuts, according to officials.
The EPA Tuesday provided to Secrets its first year staff results which show that the agency is below levels not seen since former President Reagan’s administration.

And if just those slated to retire by early 2021 leave, Administrator Scott Pruitt and his team will have reduced a staff of nearly 15,000, to below 8,000, or a reduction of 47 percent.

“We’re proud to report that we’re reducing the size of government, protecting taxpayer dollars and staying true to our core mission of protecting the environment,” Pruitt said in a statement to Secrets.

Several agencies have succeeded in making some cuts, but EPA is taking a lead.

The numbers:

• As of January 3, 2018, the EPA has 14,162 employees.
• The last time EPA was at an actual employment level of 14,440 was in fiscal year 1988 when Reagan was president.
• 23 percent of EPA employees can retire with full benefits and another 4 percent can retire at the end of 2018.
• Additionally, another 20 percent of EPA employees will be eligible for retirement in the next five years.
• Taken together, 47 percent of the EPA will be eligible to retire with full benefits in the next 5 years.

Said an EPA official, “We're happy to be at Reagan-level employment numbers and the future retirements shows a preview of how low we could get during this administration. It would be fair to say anywhere from 25 to 47 percent of EPA could retire during this administration.”

Pruitt has used buyouts to spur some of the changes and attractive retirement benefits have also led many to leave the agency. He also instituted a hiring freeze.

Under Pruitt, the agency has gone the “back to basics” of protecting the environment while shucking former President Obama’s political agenda focused heavily on climate change.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/su...rticle/2645362

---

This must be some strange new definition of "success" that I am unaware of......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crepitus

This must be some strange new definition of "success" that I am unaware of......

---

Cutting government is a success. We can't continue with deficits between $.5T and $1T forever.

Local, state and federal govt are bloated with no show and political payback do nothing positions. Its always been the method of paying back those that donate or participate greatly in campaigns for politicians. This patronage costs american taxpayers a bundle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crepitus

This must be some strange new definition of "success" that I am unaware of......

---

Success is based on the objective. If the objective is to cripple and destroy then this may fall within the definition of success.

It's important to recognize waste and to identify where an Agency's mission statement needs to be revised. But that's why it's so critical to have people in charge with a balanced perspective. When someone like Mr. Pruitt is placed in charge of the very institute he feels holds no value then it only hurts the American people in the long run. There are bad regulations and there are good regulations. The challenge is being smart enough to distinguish between the two. I don't find Mr. Pruitt as very smart or working on behalf of America's interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trish

Success is based on the objective. If the objective is to cripple and destroy then this may fall within the definition of success.

It's important to recognize waste and to identify where an Agency's mission statement needs to be revised. But that's why it's so critical to have people in charge with a balanced perspective. When someone like Mr. Pruitt is placed in charge of the very institute he feels holds no value then it only hurts the American people in the long run. There are bad regulations and there are good regulations. The challenge is being smart enough to distinguish between the two. I don't find Mr. Pruitt as very smart or working on behalf of America's interest.

---

And that is why I don't regard this as a success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trish

Success is based on the objective. If the objective is to cripple and destroy then this may fall within the definition of success.

It's important to recognize waste and to identify where an Agency's mission statement needs to be revised. But that's why it's so critical to have people in charge with a balanced perspective. When someone like Mr. Pruitt is placed in charge of the very institute he feels holds no value then it only hurts the American people in the long run. There are bad regulations and there are good regulations. The challenge is being smart enough to distinguish between the two. I don't find Mr. Pruitt as very smart or working on behalf of America's interest.

---

I personally think that the EPA's mission creep has gotten out of hand. Going after big polluters is fine, going after little polluters with big impacts is fine. We have gotten to the point that they are interfering with the ability to build homes and extorting money from farmers. There needs to be a waiver bypass to some of this stuff. I increasingly see plats with little areas set aside as wetlands that cannot be developed that take the developers years to get through because the EPA is so slow when those spots are insignificant areas where a wet weather mudhole might develop. I have read stories of farmers who were forced to pay to protect wetlands somewhere else as an offset because similar little wet spots happened to be in one of their pastures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kacper

I personally think that the EPA's mission creep has gotten out of hand. Going after big polluters is fine, going after little polluters with big impacts is fine. We have gotten to the point that they are interfering with the ability to build homes and extorting money from farmers. There needs to be a waiver bypass to some of this stuff. I increasingly see plats with little areas set aside as wetlands that cannot be developed that take the developers years to get through because the EPA is so slow when those spots are insignificant areas where a wet weather mudhole might develop. I have read stories of farmers who were forced to pay to protect wetlands somewhere else as an offset because similar little wet spots happened to be in one of their pastures.

---

This