Tag Archives: Scott Pruitt

environmental news

Pruitt’s gone, but EPA’s mission remains intact

I was among the millions of Americans who cheered the news that Scott Pruitt had resigned as Environmental Protection Agency administrator.

His corruption and utter lack of ethical conduct became unbearable. I also am astounded that he didn’t get the boot long ago. Then again, he did work in an administration led by Donald John Trump Sr., so maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised.

OK, so Scott Pruitt is gone.

Is that reason to continue cheering? Hardly. EPA remains an agency under siege. Donald Trump has declared climate change to be a “hoax” concocted by China and other economic powers that want to undermine the U.S. fossil fuel industry.

To think for a moment or two that such idiocy comes from a man who admits that he doesn’t read much. He relies on TV news talk shows to inform him. He once said he knows “more about ISIS than the generals.”

So, the president who denies the existence of climate change is able to appoint EPA bosses who adhere to his nonsensical point of view. That’s what he did when he asked Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general who took great delight in suing the Obama administration over environmental rules and regulations.

It might be that Trump — who likely didn’t even know Pruitt when he selected him — was unaware he was appointing an ethical slug to run the EPA.

The man in charge of EPA at this moment is deputy administrator Andrew Wheeler, who comes from the coal industry. I don’t know much about Wheeler, so I cannot comment directly about what he’ll do. I feel comfortable, though, in believing that if he signs on to run the EPA in a Donald Trump administration, he likely adheres to the climate change view espoused by the Big Man.

Am I still cheering Scott Pruitt’s departure from EPA?

Not any longer.

environmental news, national news

What? Trump lied — again! — about Pruitt resignation?

The Liar in Chief has done it again.

He said former Environmental Protection Agency director Scott Pruitt resigned all on his own. It was “100 percent” Pruitt’s decision, said Donald John Trump.

Oops! Now comes Bloomberg News to report that the president sent Pruitt a message via White House chief of staff John Kelly that he wanted the EPA boss to quit. Pruitt reportedly was devastated by the request, according to Bloomberg, which reported that Pruitt had no intention of quitting — until he got the word from Kelly.

To be honest, I am glad the president asked Pruitt to go. He should have done it weeks — maybe months — ago. Pruitt had been eaten alive before our eyes by scandal after scandal. Questions were being raised almost weekly about this or that extravagant expense, or allegation of conflict of interest.

Why, though, must he lie about the EPA boss’s resignation? Why does he insist that Pruitt was doing a “great job” when he wasn’t? And why does he look the other way publicly at the questions about Pruitt’s conduct?

If he did ask Pruitt to quit, then he ought to acknowledge it.

Liars, though, cannot tell the truth. No matter how badly the lie makes them look.

environmental news

Pruitt shows sickening fealty to POTUS

Scott Pruitt is gone as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The myriad ethical scandals overtook him. I’ve already commented on that. With this post, though, I want to offer a brief look at the sickening letter of resignation that Pruitt sent to Donald J. Trump.

So help me, Pruitt didn’t understand something about the job he occupied. Which is that he worked for you me. He didn’t work exclusively for the president. Yet his letter speaks of how “God’s providence” helped elect Trump.

His letter says in part: My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people.

Good grief.

It’s the kind of fealty that Trump demands of those who join his administration. To that end, Pruitt fulfilled his charge.

The rest of us paid the price.

Scott Pruitt had no business caring for the nation’s environment. He exhibited little interest in environmental protection. Instead, he demonstrated time and again a commitment to his own creature comfort.

He worked for us, not for the man who selected him for the job.

environmental news

Finally! Pruitt calls it quits

Scott Pruitt is out.

What in the world took so damn long for the Environmental Protection Agency head to hit the road? He had been buried under a mountain of scandals relating to ethical conduct, excessive spending and conflict of interest.

It was bad enough that the former Oklahoma attorney general was stripping the EPA of its “protection” rules and regulations under the guise of saving jobs. He was fulfilling the charge handed down by Donald J. Trump.

The other stuff relating to the conflicts of interests, high-end spending, wasteful policies, and a flouting of ethical standards was just too much.

I guess I have to give some credit to the young woman who confronted Pruitt the other day at the D.C. restaurant, challenging him to resign.

Perhaps he heeded her more than he let on.

Donald Trump vowed to “drain the swamp.” Pruitt, however, became the administration’s Swamp Creature. All the questions over his ethical conduct made it impossible for this man to stay in office.

Finally, we have some good news to report from the Trump administration. I fear it’ll be short-lived, given that the president’s mission to dismantle EPA’s rules aimed at protecting the environment remains intact.

national news

They work for us, however …

A woman confronted Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday while Pruitt was having a meal in a restaurant.

Kristin Mink teaches school in Washington, D.C., and said she had a “civil” discussion with Pruitt about EPA policies, which she says hurts her children.

“We deserve to have somebody at the EPA who actually does protect our environment, someone who believes in climate change and takes it seriously for the benefit of all us, including our children,” Mink said, “I would urge you to resign before your scandals push you out.”

OK. Maybe it’s just me, but I happen to shrink from this kind of confrontation of public officials in that context. Do I detest the policies that Pruitt is enacting at EPA? Yes. Do I also detest the policies coming from the Oval Office? Again, yes.

This whole issue has come to the fore in recent days ever since White House press flack Sarah Hucakabee Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant. Then came U.S. Rep. Maxine Water, D-Calif., who has declared that it’s OK to harass Trump administration officials even when they’re on their own time with their own families.

Whoa! Again, I disagree.

Kristin Mink makes a valid point, which is that Pruitt and, indeed, Donald J. Trump all work for us. They are our employees. They owe it to us to be accountable for their actions and we have every right to confront them whenever we damn well feel like it, or so the belief goes.

I just don’t like the idea of confronting these individuals in that manner. I certainly understand that they work for me — and you! There happen to be plenty of ways to hold them accountable. I try to do that with this blog, for instance. You can write them. You can call their staffs and bitch at them.

Or … you can vote for officials who will select people to administer public policy more to your preference.

I’ve confronted a (former) public official only once in my life. It was early 1996. I was walking along a street in Washington, D.C., when I encountered former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who had just published a memoir in which he acknowledged that he knew as early as 1962 that the Vietnam War was a lost cause.

Well, I was one of the millions of young men who served for a time in that war. So … I told McNamara how angry I was to learn that my country sent me into harm’s way to participate in a war the former defense boss believed could not be won.

He thanked me for my comments. I thanked him for coming clean — finally! — and we parted ways. It was just him and me. McNamara is now deceased, so I’m the only party who can speak to what occurred that day in Washington.

I didn’t consider it in the moment to be a form of “harassment.” I do consider it harassment when you berate a public official who’s seeking to enjoy some private time.

At least they understand, however, that they work for us.

environmental news, national news

The ‘swamp’ is getting swampier

Good grief, man! Can anything persuade the president of the United States to dump the director of the Environmental Protection Agency?

EPA boss Scott Pruitt now reportedly is being investigated for pushing friends and allies to get his wife a $200,000 a year job somewhere in big business.

The ethical questions just keep piling up. Never mind that Pruitt is unfit to lead the agency charged with protecting the environment. He has zero interest in environmental protection. He appears more intent on environmental destruction. But these damn ethics issues keep eclipsing the policy debates.

He accepts a sweetheart rental agreement with an energy company lobbyist; he flies aboard luxury aircraft to conduct official business; he seeks to install a sound-proof phone booth in his D.C. office; he lobbies a fast-food corporate owner to get his wife a franchise.

Now we have these latest reports about Pruitt trying to obtain a high-paying gig for his wife.

Didn’t Donald John Trump Sr. promise to “drain the swamp”? Didn’t he say he would clean the place up, creating a squeaky-clean ethical environment?

This guy has to go. Now! Hit the road.

So should Scott Pruitt!

national news

‘Haven’t paid … close attention’? Really, Mr. Speaker?

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan needs to be called out for telling a lie. So, I think I’ll do that.

He said this today in response to a question about whether he had faith in Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Pruitt:

“Frankly I haven’t paid that close attention to it … I don’t know enough about what Pruitt has or has not done to give you a good comment.”

Really and truly, Mr. Speaker? He is saying that all this tumult over EPA Administrator Pruitt’s mounting ethical troubles have gone unnoticed by the nation’s third-in-line for the presidency. He hasn’t paid “close attention to it,” he said.

Good grief, Mr. Speaker. Do you expect anyone to believe this?

I am quite certain he knows quite enough to make a comment on Pruitt’s troubles. He just doesn’t want to say anything about it.

Let me refresh his memory: Pruitt secured a dirt-cheap rental agreement for himself and his wife from a lobbyist who represents a company that is subject to EPA rules and regulations; Pruitt has been spending extravagantly for such things as a “secure telephone booth” in his office; his travel tabs have been exorbitant as well.

These are ethical matters that keep on piling up.

It’s been in all the papers. Cable news networks have been reporting on these matters.

The speaker of the House hasn’t heard enough about it to make a comment, to answer a reporter’s simple and direct question?

I don’t believe the speaker is telling the truth.

media news

Let’s not get physical with the media

Here’s yet another twist in the Trump administration’s ongoing conflict with the media. This one is a beaut.

Environmental Protection Agency officials forcibly escorted reporters from CNN and The Associated Press from a meeting room, barring them from covering a public event to discuss harmful chemicals in water.

EPA officials said there was a shortage of seats in the room. Reports indicate there were empty seats when EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt spoke to the group gathered.

What’s going on here? Please tell me the Trump administration isn’t going to start kicking reporters out of these events because of some perceive “negative coverage” he might get.

According to CNN.com: Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, addressed the matter at the daily briefing. Sanders said the White House would “certainly” look into the matter, but said for now she would refer reporters to the EPA’s statement, explaining that she could not “speak to a situation that I don’t have a lot of visibility into.” 

Yes, Ms. Sanders, the White House needs to “look into the matter.” It also needs to allow the media unfettered access to events of public concern for all Americans.

There’s that thing called the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, too, that guarantees “freedom of the press.” Let ’em report … freely!

environmental news

Earth to POTUS: No ‘siege’ at EPA

Someone needs to explain to the president of the United States — in language a second-grader might understand — what a conflict of interest looks like.

It usually involves taking advantage of someone with a vested stake in a public policy, such as, oh, living for virtually free in a condo provided by a lobbyist whose interests might benefit from certain policies.

Such is the case with Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Pruitt, who rents a condo for $50 per night from an oil company lobbyist. The lobbyist is trying to curry favor with EPA on policies that would benefit the oil company.

Does one think that’s a conflict of interest? Yes! But if the answer is “no,” they need to look up the definition of the term.

Donald Trump says Pruitt is “totally under siege” by what he calls the “fake news media.”

Mr. President … ready my lips. No one is denying that the Pruitts are renting this condo from the lobbyist. The EPA director has offered some lame excuse that he pays that dirt-cheap rate only when he is staying there. How in the name of government ethics does that make it all right?

Pruitt was a bad choice to lead the EPA from the beginning, given his penchant for rolling back rules designed to, um, protect the environment. That he’s been revealed as someone who likes living high off the generosity of a lobbyist only makes matters worse.

So, Mr. President, stop with the “fake news” canard. It ain’t fake, sir. It’s true.

media news

Fox News seeks to become ‘fake news’ network?

I have to give credit to a Fox News reporter, Ed Henry, for seeking some answers from Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Pruitt.

Hey, if the network allows more of this line of questioning, it will become part of the so-called “fake news” cabal that Donald Trump keeps excoriating.

Henry interviewed Pruitt about the ethics controversy that is boiling at Pruitt’s feet. He and his wife rented a pricey condo from an oil industry lobbyist for $50 a night. Henry asked Pruitt if that is the way to “drain the swamp” that the president keeps insisting is part of his Washington, D.C., agenda.

Pruitt said the question “isn’t remotely fair.” Actually, it was totally fair. I give Henry great credit for standing up to this guy.

Pruitt is unfit for the job anyway. That he would be taking what amounts to a gift from a lobbyist who is trying to influence EPA policy smacks of maximum conflict of interest.

I know it. Ed Henry knows it. It well might be that the president knows it. However, Pruitt pushes back by saying a tough question isn’t “remotely fair.”

Pruitt doesn’t get it. I doubt he will. He needs to go.

As for Fox News and one of its top-gun reporters, well done.