Don't Waive Federal Emission Rules For California
Rep. McClintock gave the following speech on the floor of the House, January 26, 2009.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the President not to waive the Federal law on emission standards that is currently protecting Californians from Governor Schwarzenegger's crusade to save our planet by destroying our economy. Putting aside the highly questionable junk science behind the Governor's proposal, the net effect would add up to $5,000 to the price of a new car.
Automobile sales normally account for one-fifth of California's sales taxes, which have already fallen by $1 1/2 billion over the past 12 months. Ironically, the Governor's also asking the President to bail out California's growing budget deficit at the same time.
So I would respectfully suggest to the President that California's economic folly is not something that he should be copying.
- Login or register to post comments
- Share This
I disagree with Tom
I disagree with Tom McClintock on this. While I agree that the standard endorsed by the state government is indeed "economic folly" that isn't the point. If a state wants to hold itself to higher (or lower) emission standards it should be able to. The people of California should decide and the federal government should stay out of it.
I'm with Ben here, for two
I'm with Ben here, for two reasons. Primarily on the stance of "states rights". And secondly on the stance of air quality. I was not for Ca smog rules when they came out in the 70's, but I was wrong on that one. I remember in 1971 in LA, smog often reduced the visibility to less than one mile. If the California Legislature wants to go tighter, let 'em. Your position here is wrong on both counts. One is states rights, the other is not necessarily "the environment", but you are standing in the way of progress. If you give Detroit a limit, they'll find a way to meet or beat it. If they can't do it, then they shouldn't be in business anyhow.
Am I missing something, or is
Am I missing something, or is this statement indicating a lack of support for states' rights? I have always known you to be in favor of states' rights. Even Ron Paul has spoken in favor of the waiver on that basis
ben, you're right on. while
ben,
you're right on. while i don't agree with ahnold on this issue, i do agree that there has to be a separation between the fed's powers and the states powers and the individual's rights.
where in the constitution does the fed have power over the states on this issue?