Link to your story here. I put the links in manually, it's more reliable.

And yes, the reasons for the changes are not given by this advocate. For example, just this one story I found has a lot more details.

The Poison Control Centers, which apparently get 80 percent of their funding now from other sources, are largely redundant, and might be combined into fewer centralized centers. Notice how your article puts it like this:

^The House budget slashed 93 percent of the money used to operate 57 of the country's poison control centers even though accidental poisoning remains one of the top causes of unintentional death in this country.^

Of course, the gullible are meant to think this is 93 percent of their total funding, and the writer was going for that effect. Instead, it's 93 percent of 20 percent. The current total Federal funding level is $30 million, being cut to $2 million. If you do all the math (and assume the largesse is spread evenly) this means a cut of $491,000 for a $2.63 million budget for each center. You think Harkin's political friends in Iowa might be able to cough that half million up from Iowa's own budget? If he's right about it saving his state $11 for every dollar it costs, it would seem to be quite an investment.

The CPSC issue is, as mentioned in the first article I linked, accuracy. You can see what would happen if public access to random consumer complaints was shoved out there unexamined with the stamp of the CPSC on it. You can find enough of that "drive-by review" stuff on the internet if you really want it. The whole point of the CPSC is supposed to be carefully-researched information, not gossip.

The EPA badly needs to be taken down a few pegs. It is no longer a public watchdog, but a weapon of the environmentalist left. It's prime function seems to be destroying private industry, not cleaning it up. Like the unions, this function is fundamental to the goals of the Left, and they are going to fight this one hard.

But that's neither here nor there. The House would cut $3 billion off a $10.3 billion budget (Obama wants to cut less). What remains would be about $7.3 billion. What people conveniently forget is that the EPA budget since 1999 has hovered between $7.6 and $8.4 billion, averaging out at $7.8 billion over that decade. Maybe you forget that Obama drastically increased the EPA budget in 2010 from $7.6 billion to $10.3 billion. He wanted to give the unelected EPA vast new climate regulation powers, things he was unable to shove through the democratic legislative process. A trick he's pulled on a number of regulatory fronts.

So now we're going to destroy the EPA by dropping its funding to about where it had been for years?

That's the first three in your article. I'm not sure it would be worth my time to do the rest.

The Rest of the Story. Not as easy to digest as the simple Jeremiads of the Left, but there it is.