REPUBLICANS CUT NEW ENERGY FUNDING

GOP plan slashes renewable energy
David Rogers, June 1, 2011 (Politico)

"House Republicans [have] unveiled a scaled-back $30.6 billion energy and water budget… that makes deep cuts from energy efficiency and renewable energy programs while trying to stabilize science and defense investments within tighter spending caps.

"Total energy and water appropriations would drop another $1.06 billion on top of the more than $2 billion in reductions already enacted in April. And the cumulative effect is to push back annual spending –measured in real dollars— to levels not seen since early in President George W. Bush’s first term…But within this tighter framework, clear priorities can also be seen as the bill managers stretch the dollars left on the table."

Cutting off funding for New Energy and Energy Efficiency during a recession is like trying to conserve water when a fire is raging. (click to enlarge)

"…[S]cience programs are held stable at $4.8 billion—just $42 million below the agreed upon 2011 level…[N]uclear weapon activities are promised nearly $7.1 billion…$195 million over 2011…By comparison, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs are big losers. Total funding in this sector is set at $1.3 billion, less than half of President Barack Obama’s request and $491 million below current funding…"

Withholding funding to fix this just to prove they can cut the budget? Really? (click to enlarge)

"For the Army Corps of Engineers, the bill promises $4.77 billion…close to the 2011 funding level…[and there could be more] given the pressure for additional emergency funds in the wake of devastating floods along the Mississippi River this spring…More than any single bill this year, the energy and water measure is a test of the GOP’s vow to shun any attempt to earmark funds for projects in the home districts of lawmakers.

"…[A] pool of money—perhaps several hundred million dollars—is expected to be set aside for unspecified navigation and flood control projects…[and] the Corps will be given 45 days to come up with its priorities for these funds. The whole exercise could shed more light on how those decisions are made by the same bureaucracy—which has often criticized Congress in the past for interfering."