United States

Obama Moves to Let States Set Own Rules on Emissions

Mon, 01/26/2009 - 5:32am
By: Cyclist

OK, this is going to be interesting to watch. Individual states can set their own limits which the automakers claim will force the cost of business and sticker prices to go up. Of course, in the meantime, we are dolling out public money to these automakers (Chrysler & GM thus far) which I suspect will not stop.

Story

login or register to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Emissions case: strange bedfellows
sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Wed, 01/28/2009 - 10:32am.

Cyclist, you are right, this is shaping up to be a VERY interesting case.

First and foremost, it has revealed a huge ideological schism between two factions of the Republican party that usually work in perfect harmony with each other.

On one side of the argument (single Federal standard) are the "big business" Republicans, Democrats from 3 auto producing states (MI, AL and SC) and the Wall Street Journal. They have the weakest argument, in my opinion: "Auto profits uber alles".

On the other side of the argument (states rights with regard to setting standards) is a most unusual consortium: The majority of Democrats, the Conservative Legal Foundation, and Bush-appointed Federal Appeals court judges.

The Wall Street Journal is downplaying the involvement of conservatives on the pro-California side of the issue, attempting to frame it as the usual Dems vs. Repubs sort of issue.

The strict constructionist conservatives are having none of this, however, looking at it as a fundamental breech of states rights.

Personally, I hope some resolution can be reached that permits states to set their own emission standards, and hopefully do it in such a way that conservatives on both side of the issue are made to look bad politically.
_________________________
Palin-Nugent 2012


login or register to post comments
Interesting
The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 7:51am.

California wants to raise the emmissions standards and the automakers do not want to have 2 separate vehicle standards. The great hope from California people is that their actions can drive the entire country to change. This change will mandate lighter, composite constructed cars (read more risky crash data) and will make autos more costly. I hope that we can begin to see the end of one state's domination. The car companies are retrenching and downsizing. Maybe they should choose to not compete in that market.


login or register to post comments
wedge..
S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 4:39pm.

You are absolutely correct.. The auto makers are having a rough period and our" Great leader" decides to throw a curve ball at them.. They are not going to produce 2 different types of cars.. and unless the rest of America wants to ride in a tin cup it will not sell. So again the auto makers are screwed..
Obama is doing as he promised he would do.. Give the far left nuts everything they want..


login or register to post comments
What about states' rights? Oh, yeah, only for what we like
ManofGreatLogic's picture
Submitted by ManofGreatLogic on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 7:37pm.

The big 3 can sell their cars in other states.

What happened to states' rights you Southerners love to preach about?

Oh yeah, that's only for things you agree with. I forgot.

California can do whatever it is they do out there. Why should we care? It's their state. They can set their own standards.

It's called states' rights.


login or register to post comments
I Like The States Rights Idea
Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 11:07pm.

California can indeed do whatever they want. I'd like to see the automakers ignore California and economically produce profitable vehicles and just not send any to that boneheaded state.

Gee.... I wonder if ManOfNoSense believes in states rights regarding firearms ownership, private property rights, and the right to free speech on talk radio? Eye-wink


login or register to post comments
Git Real: states rights
Submitted by baroombrawl on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 4:19am.

I think states rights proponents are hypocrites!

They want their share of all money out of Washington, but don't want any strings on it.

Also, they want Washington to defend them if we are attacked.
They want school money out of Washington. (States won't accumulate it)
They want road money out of Washington. "
They want to drive all over the USA, but want each state to have the same laws as their home state.
Won't repair infrastructure built by the USA in their state. Want Washington to do that.
Can't even get the state to treat mentally ill people right. Want Washington to do that.
Want the government to prop up farm goods raised in their state.
And on and on!
Don't want to contribute to SS, but want a federal pension of some sort.

login or register to post comments
Now BB...
Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 8:26am.

Until you truly understand the concept of "States Rights" please don't burden me with unrealistic hypotheticals. Speaking for myself I want Washington out of a large part of our states business. There are reasonable functions that a Federal Government should perform and their are functions that need to be handled on a state and federal level. I would love to answer each point but I somehow expect that reasonable answers would be a waste of time with you. I guess we will find that out shortly as you respond to your questions in a previous blog.


login or register to post comments
Git Real: reasonable functions?
Submitted by baroombrawl on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 3:14pm.

Mind telling me those that are reasonable and those that are not?
Just a few of each, please.

Do schools apply?
Does welfare apply?
Do hospitals apply?
Do roads and interstates apply?
Do mental institutions apply?
Does health research apply?
Do wars apply?
Does the UN apply?
Does the Supreme Court apply?
Did the US Supreme do right in overruling the Florida Supreme Court in a state election problem?
Should we help with cash in national disasters elsewhere (N.O.) here in Georgia or should the US do that?
Are there "reasonable" rules that should apply nationwide to human treatment or to those things that effect other states (water usage, for instance)?
What does reasonable mean to everyone?

login or register to post comments
So when can we expect the automakers...
Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 8:12pm.

(GM and Chrysler) to request more money in order to re-tool to meet up to 50 different standards? Or does the Federal Guv finally tell them there is no more money and it's sink or swim. I suspect the UAW will be pounding on some one's door (most likely a Democrat door) demanding relief because of the risk to jobs. Oh, BTW, that $25 billion has just evaporated into thin air. March will be here soon.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.