The strength of this story is that it doesn't just focus on one or two actions of the EPA, but on long term political trends at the agency. Given the source and the style however, it's a story that "preaches to the choir." People predisposed to believing the Bush administration has hogtied the EPA will love this story. Everyone else will stop after the first paragraph, irritated by vague charges made by "legions of critics." This is the kind of story that piles on example after example, creating a lawyerly like case to prove the author's point. From a public point of view, it would be more useful to have data that helps the reader assess and make a judgment. The author makes her judgment clear from the first sentence. For example, saying the budget has been cut "to only $7.1 billion" tells me nothing if I don't understand how that compares with previous years or other agencies. I don't know how the money is allocated or how that has changed, and I have no sense of how much the EPA needs/asks for.