Trumps EPA moves to defund programs that protect children from lead-based paint

[n2doc]

Environmental Protection Agency officials are proposing to eliminate two programs focused on limiting children’s exposure to lead-based paint — which is known to cause damage to developing brains and nervous systems.

The proposed cuts, outlined in a 64 page budget memo revealed by The Washington Post on Friday, would roll back programs aimed at reducing lead risks by $16.61 million and more than 70 employees, in line with a broader project by the Trump administration to devolve responsibility for environmental and health protection to state and local governments.

Old housing stock is the biggest risk for lead exposure — and the EPA estimates that 38 million U.S. homes contain lead-based paint.

Environmental groups said the elimination of the two programs, which are focused on training workers in the safe removal of lead-based paint and public education about its risks, would make it harder for the EPA to address the environmental hazard.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/05/trumps-epa-moves-to-defund-programs-that-protect-children-from-lead/?utm_term=.38904e0b0a11

Evil fuckers

[spanone]

1. 'trump declares children not getting sufficient amounts of lead in diet'

nothing would surprise me from these cretins

[caroldansen]

2. Trump is a monster. How did a monster get in the white house?!!!!!

[shenmue]

4. Yeah

[riversedge]

3. OMG!!! Please call your Senators and Rep NOW

[underpants]

5. Wow. Really? Lead paint

We'll see what happens when this gets to the House.

[world wide wally]

6. Who the fuck does this benefit?

[n2doc]

7. Slumlords and old factories n/t

[NCTraveler]

9. The savings to slumlords would be so small.

That said, you are absolutely correct. There are so many slumlords out there that the savings would look big when added up. Insignificant when viewed on a per case basis.

I'm not educated in the factory aspect and am only commenting on the residential slumlord aspect.

[n2doc]

11. Its just a guess on my part

But I suspect there are folks who have just hated the expense of having to clean up their properties and who are influential in the Republican Party.

[NCTraveler]

12. The part of the law that would change for me in this...

has nothing to do with clean up. I am fully allowed to move someone into a property with led paint. I have to give them an educational pamphlet. That would no longer be required if I am reading this properly. That is why I limited my comment to residential slumlords. My savings would be about $50/year.

[NCTraveler]

8. This would save me about $50/year.

If he did it, I would still use the current procedure law requires me to. The $50 is worth it. I hate that he can claim small business savings off of things like this. He will promote it as an investment in small business while glossing over many aspects. (Just talking about the aspect I'm required to follow in my business)

[hunter]

10. Lead and the insecticide chlorpyrifos...

Are they trying to damage the brains of our children?