Posted on 02/27/2009 1:26:59 PM PST by SmithL
Tom McClintock may have barely squeaked out a win in a congressional district where Republicans hold a 15-point voter registration advantage. But he is clearly savoring his new speech-making perch in Congress.
McClintock, of Northern California's 4th Congressional District, is aggressively attacking Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on global warming. And the man who loves to quote historic figures from Churchill to Jefferson is now quoting himself to take on President Barack Obama's economic agenda.
On Schwarzennegger, McClintock arose to demand that the federal government hold firm against California's efforts to impose stricter emissions standards for automobiles.
"I rise to urge the president not to waive the federal law on emission standards that is currently protecting Californians from Gov. Schwarzenegger's crusade to save our planet by destroying our economy,"
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Schwarzenegger is the perfect patsy for the Euro-socialist “global warming” scammers.
He’s just not a very bright fellow.
The two cases have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Really, you don't get what I said at all.
I don't question their ability to comply with whatever crazy regulations is imposed.
What constitutes crazy? You still haven't answered the charge that you are reserving the prerogative to decide what constitutes "makes sense." Nor are you technically competent to do so. Is it positive crankcase ventilation? Is it exhaust gas recirculation? Is it air injection? Is it multiport direct injection?
That's not the point any more. Every car manufacturer in the world has the ability to do every one of those technologies. They have the ability to make cars that get better mileage, more power, less emissions of whatever type the customer thinks important. Hell, they can even give you a car that can manage all of those trade-offs. That's existing technology.
The point is, they can do that without changing the car at all, and vary the relative degree of emphasis by local market preference, all in software. IOW, the car doesn't have to be different to respect local preferences.
What you haven't considered is a community's desire to market their air quality versus roads with 100mph speed limits, etc. because you want one standard nationwide.
Why? Cars today are made to order, not to forecast. The entire bill of material is then generated and delivery forecasts updated. That's what JIT is all about. It is not analogous to the gasoline market, which is far more sensitive to delivery and inventory costs. The belief that a national standard is the only technically and economically feasible option is simply no longer true because the WIP and supply chain are so much more flexible.
In any case, a national standard is effectively a democratic majority using a government agent to design cars, something I know for certain you don't want.
When I said “make sense” I was referring to what makes economic sense. I was not passing judgment on technology, nor suggesting that I had the technical knowledge to do so.
I do know that for every regulation you place on industry there is a cost. I’m for limiting those. Can a company react to millions of pages of regulation? Sure. Can they adapt their products more easily through JIT to make a car to your specific specifications? Sure. But there is a cost.
That is all I was saying.
As to a community marketing clean air, I think you missed the topic of the thread. We’re talking about greenhouse gases, not pollution.
All this regional EnvironMental engineering is doing is simply making everything cost more, including S&H!!!
However, here's to local control in local hands as EnvironMentalists are nothing but control freaks who don't want to have to intimidate, lobby and litigate each county in America, let alone the 58 counties of CA!!!
There are a multitude of facets to the discussion the two of you are having and it is VERY interesting!!! Carry on, please...
I just exhaled CO2 all over my screen and now it’s all poluted!!!
I had always believed Federalism was distributing power between State and Feds. It is not a subject I have studied at all but my basic ABC thought process tells me that power/authority, responsibility and accountabilty should lie with one or the other, but not both. Bring counties or regional entities into the equation and the same logic applies. If local control is best then the state and feds should get the heck out.
When it comes to greenhouse gases, I think that trying to control them would be right up Don Quixote’s alley. But if I did buy into the rhetoric, I would have been told that the United States can’t go it alone and that China and India would have to also participate. Well, in that case, how could California benefit if Nevada cranks up the CO2 machines along with China and India? Sounds like throwing money down the toilet, to me, and pushing every productive entity out of the state of California.
Did you have a carbon allowance for that? ;-)
Frankly, if the power is not enumerated in the Constitution, it does not legitimately exist. Setting a national standard for "compliance" is a power the Feds do not Constitutionally possess. It is certainly not the commerce clause, which was more to preclude interState tariffs than anything.
It is not a subject I have studied at all but my basic ABC thought process tells me that power/authority, responsibility and accountabilty should lie with one or the other, but not both.
The principle of enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment make the choice unmistakeable. Take a gander of the preamble to the Bill of Rights some time to see which takes precedence.
Bring counties or regional entities into the equation and the same logic applies. If local control is best then the state and feds should get the heck out.
And they can decide to turf the decision higher up while retaining the option to opt out.
When it comes to greenhouse gases, I think that trying to control them would be right up Don Quixote’s alley.
Of course it's stupid, pointless, fraudulent, and criminal. There is nothing that legally precludes the representatives of the people in the states from engaging in such a delusion unless it violates a State constitution or statute.
Sounds like throwing money down the toilet, to me, and pushing every productive entity out of the state of California.
Of course it is. Enriching our creditors is the goal, it's a way of compensating them for inflating the principal, a very hidden in plain sight tax if you will. Of course anthropogenic CO2 is minuscule, of course it has no climatic effect, and of course the whole thing is being driven by a horde of crooks, useful idiots, and traitors. None of that matters where the law is concerned. As I have said in the past, many times, the kicker here is where the money goes. If it goes for "offsets" that presuppose an international agreement, then the States are not permitted to enter such agreements even by means of a domestic exchange (facilitator or agent for transactions pursuant to said agreement) because the Constitution of the United States specifically precludes the States from negotiating, entering, or concluding agreements with foreign powers. THAT is what you should be bitching about, at least in terms of the rule of law.
BTTT
Who is "bitching? I thought this was a discussion.
A speech on the House floor is carried by CSPAN. CSPAN has ratings that blow the doors off every cable news station 24 hours a day.
The roll of the minority is not to try to govern but to provide a voice for alternatives - to make the case that our side has better answers. That is what he is doing here, and every time he rises to speak.
Dan: I implied exactly that when I said it was a great sound bit.
However, from the practical standpoint, here is what I meant by useless gesture. The thinking that even a Cicero or Churchill could convey facts and pleas which could get BO to budge from an agenda quite possibly more radical than than Schwarzenkaiser’s RFKJr driven plans.
BO would accede to his speech only if he felt thwarting Arnold were useful.
By all means Tom should continue his speaking out (which carries risks to him); I do and have appreciated his efforts. My only regret is that I never convinced his team accept my unique offer to help get him elected as governor. The situation in California could be nuch better today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.