Even those of us who have worked in Washington for many years and become accustomed to the inner workings of government can still be amazed by what lurks behind the curtain sometimes. Case in point: the Environmental Protection Agency.

Most Americans have at least heard of the EPA, even if they have only a dim notion of what the agency actually does. It tends to skate along under the radar, unless something unusual happens, such as the toxic spill that turned the Colorado’s Animas River orange last August. Of course, what really made the spill unusual is that the EPA itself caused it.

Otherwise, Americans don’t hear much about the agency. So many of them would probably be as unpleasantly surprised as I was by a new report by Open the Books, a nonprofit group that promotes government transparency. Its look into the EPA’s spending habits is alarming, to put it mildly.

The first thing that strikes you is the EPA’s spendthrift ways. Even if times were flush and government coffers were overflowing (which is far from the case), the agency spends money like it’s expecting the Second Coming next week. The Open the Books audit covered tens of thousands of checks the EPA wrote from 2000 to 2014, with hundreds of millions going toward such things as luxury furnishings, sports equipment, and “environmental justice” grants to raise awareness of global warming.

The second thing that hits you is where the rest of the money goes. The headline of an op-ed by economist Stephen Moore in Investor’s Business Daily sums it up well: “Why Does the EPA Need Guns, Ammo, and Armor to Protect the Environment?”

And not just a few weapons. Open the Books found that the agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on guns, ammo, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear, and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities.

“We were shocked ourselves to find these kinds of pervasive expenditures at an agency that is supposed to be involved in clean air and clean water,” said Open the Books founder Adam Andrzejewski. “Some of these weapons are for full-scale military operations.”

Among the EPA’s purchases:

$1.4 million for “guns up to 300mm.”

$380,000 for “ammunition.”

$210,000 for “camouflage and other deceptive equipment.”

$208,000 for “radar and night-vision equipment.”

$31,000 for “armament training devices.”

The list goes on. It’s filled with the kind of equipment you’d expect to be purchased by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not an agency ostensibly designed to protect the environment.

But as it turns out, armed, commando-style raids by the EPA are not unheard of. One such raid occurred in 2013, in a small Alaskan town where armed agents in full body armor reportedly confronted local miners accused of polluting local waters. Perhaps the agency is gearing up for more operations like that one?

If so, the EPA wouldn’t be all that unique. According to the Justice Department, there are now 40 federal agencies with more than 100,000 officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests. They include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The EPA audit underscores the need for serious budget cuts at the agency. In July, before the Colorado spill and the Open the Books report, environmental policy expert Nicolas Loris called on Congress to shrink the EPA’s budget, outlining several specific cuts that could be done immediately and with no detrimental effect on the environment.

“The proposed cuts outlined here merely scratch the surface of a rogue agency that has wildly spent and regulated outside its purview,” Loris concluded. After reviewing the Open the Books report, who can disagree? (For more from the author of “Why Did the Environmental Protection Agency Spend $1.4 Million on Guns?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims the finalized “Clean Power Plan” will have climate and health benefits for Americans worth tens of billions of dollars and save thousands of lives per year. Despite the rise in electricity prices that will result from the implementation of this rule, the agency asserts the regulation is a “historic step” toward combating climate change and improving public health.

However, the EPA has been extremely one-sided in its analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule. The rule requires states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent in 2030, though these emission reductions will have essentially no impact on global warming, reducing the rise in global temperatures by just 0.02 degrees Celsius in 2100. Because the climate rule will not affect climate change, the Obama administration relies on health co-benefits that have nothing to do with regulating carbon dioxide. These health co-benefits comprise over two-thirds of the total benefits, including EPA’s claim that the rule prevents thousands of premature deaths. The EPA has also turned to linking climate change to asthma to garner public support for the rule. While EPA claims its carbon rule will save lives, the agency fails to acknowledge how many deaths the plan may cause.

Specifically, EPA ignores the link between health and wealth. By increasing electricity prices and decreasing the disposable income of low-income families,the rule may end up causing far more premature deaths than it prevents, even if we accept the EPA’s numbers at face value. In fact, as explained below, our estimates indicate EPA’s rule could cause—on balance—14,000 more premature deaths by 2030. Vulnerable, low-income families, who spend a of their incomes on energy, will be harmed the most—and could be forced to forgo necessities such as food, medical care, and prescription drugs. By forcing higher energy prices on American families, the rule will end up making the poor poorer and the sick sicker.

The EPA acknowledged this “health-wealth” connection in the past and has used it in economic analyses, stating: “people’s wealth and health status, as measured by mortality, morbidity, and other metrics, are positively correlated. Hence, those who bear a regulation’s compliance costs may also suffer a decline in their health status, and if the costs are large enough, these increased risks might be greater than the direct risk-reduction benefits of the regulation.”

Although the EPA used to appreciate the health-wealth link, EPA now ignores it to promote President Obama’s carbon agenda. Citing Executive Order 13563 in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan, the EPA recounts that, “our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” Unfortunately, in neglecting to accurately assess the public health costs of the carbon rule, the EPA is poised to negatively impact Americans’ health, discourage economic growth, and destroy jobs—all for essentially no effect on climate change. (Read more from “The Poor and the Sick Suffer Under Obama’s Carbon Rule” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.