9 Reasons President Trump Is Right To Cut The EPA

When President Donald Trump announced his proposed budget last month, he included a large cut to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Naturally, cries that his administration is waging a "war on science" ensued. But in all honestly, the EPA really could use some trimming.

Staff scandals wracked the EPA throughout President Obama's tenure, and when the government "shut down" in 2013, only 7 percent of EPA staff were considered essential.

Here are nine reasons why cutting the EPA, as Trump has suggested, is not such a bad thing after all.

1. 15,000 non-essential workers.

When Texas Senator Ted Cruz famously ended the world by "shutting down the government" in 2013, Obama's EPA revealed just how much fat there was to trim. As Reuters reported toward the end of September, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will take one of the biggest hits of any federal agency if the government shuts down this week, operating with under 7 percent of its employees, according to guidance issued by the agency."

That's right — less than 7 percent of the EPA's staff were deemed "essential." The EPA "said its plan for dealing with a shutdown would classify 1,069 employees, out of 16,205, as essential. These employees would continue to work if Congress fails to secure a budget deal by midnight Monday to avoid disruption to federal funding."

By the Obama EPA's own logic, 15,136 of the agency's 16,205 employees were not "essential." That suggests a great deal of wiggle room.

Coincidentally, many employees have seemingly singled themselves out by their own behavior.

2. Watching porn, six hours a day.

In 2014, the EPA inspector general uncovered "a high ranking EPA official" who "admitted to watching between two and six hours of porn per workday."

Worse, the employee kept his job, which pays $120,000 per year. As EPA Facts reported, "The employee is still receiving his $120,000 salary, continues to have access to EPA computers, and has recently received performance bonuses, according to testimony at yesterday's Oversight Committee hearing on the EPA."

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that kind of behavior should be acceptable for a high-ranking government official.