Dependable Erection

Thursday, December 20, 2007

State's rights

Remember that little brouhaha about state's rights awhile back?

Turns out it wasn't about state's rights after all.
The 17 states — including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — had waited two years for the Bush administration to issue a ruling on an application to set stricter air quality standards than those adopted by the federal government. The decision, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, was the first time California was refused permission to impose its own pollution rules; the federal government had previously granted the state more than 50 waivers.

The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 — but never approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.

That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient.

Seventeen states, including California and New York, accounting for over half of all vehicles purchased in the US, want to set stricter emissions limits on automobiles than the feds. Conservatives in the federal government won't allow it. Where's the outcry among state's rights advocates?

Labels: ,

7 Comments:

  • I think current Civil War apologists are one of the reasons no one ever cries states' rights any more. It didn't exactly work so well for the Democrats at the time you refer to.

    Another is that the Republican Party (the one I'd expect to cry states' rights this time) doesn't seem to be about previous Republican "ideals" like oh, say, limited government, fiscal responsibility, or even isolationism. It doesn't even have the advantage some older Republican administrations seem to have had in foreign affairs. Instead it's about getting out the fundy Xtian vote, then scaring everyone else along as much as possible.

    By Blogger Joseph H. Vilas, at 6:40 PM  

  • The only Republican I've heard take the concept of states' rights seriously in the last 20 years is Ron Paul. And I think it's pretty clear at this point that he is not representative of the GOP mainstream.

    By Blogger Brian, at 7:21 PM  

  • By Blogger Barry, at 8:32 PM  

  • I really don't think of Reagan as much of a states' rights president. Perhaps Jesse Jackson knows more about it than I do. The only example that springs to mind was the alcohol/ minimum age legislation that was essentially forced on all the states so, in "Liddy" Dole's words, we wouldn't have "blood borders" (Liddy was DOT Secretary under Reagan at the time).

    Reagan, of course, also drove the federal budget all to hell. I think the last president under whom we had a budget surplus was Gerald Ford, but I'm not gonna look it up.

    By Blogger Joseph H. Vilas, at 11:29 PM  

  • Well, Reagan exemplified the difference between state's rights rhetoric and state's rights action which came to be the Republican Party trademark during the 80s and 90s.

    And come on, Joe, it wasn't all that long ago the fed was in surplus. FY 99 and FY 2000. Under Clinton. In fact, the surplus was the cited reason for the Bush tax cuts, which we'll be paying for for the next 40 years or so.

    By Blogger Barry, at 9:04 AM  

  • Oh God, states' rights. Don't get me started.

    Anyway, the current administration is all about corporate rights. The "rights" of corporations trump states' rights, individual rights, the law, the Constitution, you name it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:21 AM  

  • Well, Reagan exemplified the difference between state's rights rhetoric and state's rights action which came to be the Republican Party trademark during the 80s and 90s.

    Sure -- that makes perfect sense.

    it wasn't all that long ago the fed was in surplus. FY 99 and FY 2000. Under Clinton.

    Ok -- thanks. I'm glad. Clinton was a pretty good conservative, wasn't he? :) I started to feel that way after he said during (I think) a state of the union address something like "The days of big government are over." I thought, "Wow. A Democrat standing up and saying that? The times, they are a changin'."

    By Blogger Joseph H. Vilas, at 2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home