There is nothing more iconic and universal in the United States than car ownership. Besides the Second Amendment, nothing symbolizes our freedom more. Which I guess is why the Left needs to attack it.
Yesterday, two news stories surfaced about Democrats wanting to outlaw cars and their private ownership. First up was Gavin Newsom responding to Donald Trump. Trump wants to strip California of its right to set its own standards for vehicle pollution. And then Presidential wannabe, Andrew Yang, commenting on cars and climate change.
Newsom on State’s Rights
Yesterday, Local television station KOVR posted an article from CNN called California Gov. Gavin Newsom: Trump Administration ‘Threatening’ Private Business
Folks, when I see a California Democrat accusing a businessman (Donald Trump) of threatening business, I know I’m about to take a journey of imagination through the Twilight Zone.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom slammed the Trump administration and Republicans for their “complete silence on state’s rights, but also free enterprise” in light of President Donald Trump’s decision to curtail state-set emissions standards.
“They’re calling private sector corporations to the mat and threatening them,” Newsom, a Democrat, told CNN’s Don Lemon on Wednesday night on “CNN Tonight.”
Folks, FYI, when you see Newsom talking about state’s rights then you know something is off. Newsom is using the State’s rights argument to flaunt Federal law. This is how California can have sanctuary cities, decriminalization of drugs, refuse to prosecute illegal immigrants that commit crimes, etc.
Then Newsom goes on to claim that he is for free enterprise? Really? OK Gavin, then why is free enterprise almost nonexistent in your state? Why are businesses, the middleclass, and retirees fleeing your state by the thousands every month?
Why is it OK for California to dictate to automakers what emission standards should be but the national government should butt-out?
What Newsom is calling “state’s rights” is newspeak for unchecked tyranny.
For decades, California has effectively forced the rest of the nation to adopt their auto emission standards because manufacturing is easier to one standard than too many.
California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act allowed it to set standards tighter than the federal government’s, which have been adopted by more than a dozen states and became the de-facto nationwide standard because automakers do not design different sets of vehicles to meet standards in different states.
Compared to the 1970’s, California has about triple the population and a fraction of the amount of air pollution. If you look at a cost/benefit graph of costs, we are at the point where any decrease in allowable emissions will cost a significant amount.
Folks, it’s one thing for California to want to have lower emissions from cars but California wants to outlaw car ownership altogether. California also aspires to be the first state in the nation to outlaw internal combustion engines for both cars and trucks. Trump is wanting to free the auto industry from the crazy standards that California and former President Obama agreed to for the next decade.
California has this strange idea that we are “green” and into “sustainability.” This of course is self-delusion and nonsense. Look at the collapse of our recycling program. We can’t send our crap to China anymore so it just goes from the recycle bin to the landfill. Which is worse, our current air quality or the long-term effects of all the stuff we bury that gets into the water table? If California was serious about the environment as they claim then we would recycle all our trash within our own borders. As previously stated on this blog, Elon Musk is better suited for this task than trying to run a car company.
Also, if Gavin cared about the private sector then why is there a bill on his desk (AB 1482) to confiscate all residential rental property and setup a statewide scheme of rent control? Why are Democrats clamoring to bifurcate Proposition 13 and jack-up the tax rate on businesses? Why do entry level jobs have to pay $15 per hour?
The article continues:
“Federalism be damned; state rights, 10th Amendment be damned; Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon be damned,” Newsom said Wednesday when asked why he thought a Republican administration was exerting its power over a state-level decision — traditionally a cornerstone of conservative policy.
Newsom pointed to Reagan’s efforts as the state’s governor in 1967 to address smog in Los Angeles, arguing that it led to the bipartisan Clean Air Act signed by Nixon, a fellow California Republican, in 1970.
Newsom raises a good question in the above quote but clearly he is shading the facts to make an argument he doesn’t really believe. On this side of the Civil War and the New Deal, what is the Tenth Amendment to a Liberal? Just that he acknowledges the validity of the Tenth Amendment might be viewed by some as an accomplishment. When Democrats are saying good things about Nixon and Reagan in the same sentence, it should make you wonder why. Newsom is cherry picking data points to make a prima facie argument.
The only real question that you need to have about the above quote is “What is the nature of the agreement that California can set stricter emission rules?” Is it a regulation or a law? If it’s a regulation then as head of the Executive Branch, Trump can change it, if it’s a law then only Congress can change it.
Contrary to the way Newsom framed his complaint, this is not the first time that California and the Federal government have butted heads over vehicle emissions.
Yang on Banning Car Ownership
Andrew Yang, one of the herd of Democrat Presidential Wannabees, had some really honest and shocking words yesterday on cars as well. In short outlaw them.
Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said the United States may have to eliminate private car ownership to combat climate change during MSNBC’s climate forum at Georgetown University Thursday morning.
He told MSNBC host Ali Velshi that “we might not own our own cars” by 2050 to wean the United States economy off of fossil fuels, describing private car ownership as “really inefficient and bad for the environment.” Privately owned cars would be replaced by a “constant roving fleet of electric cars.”
“Well I mentioned before that we might not own our own cars. Our current car ownership and usage model is really inefficient and bad for the environment,” Yang said.
The plan also includes a zero emissions standard for all new cars by 2030 and hundreds of billions of dollars in investments in emission-free ground and air transportation.Yang: Climate Change May Require Elimination of Car Ownership
Folks as documented elsewhere on our blog, at current rates, there is not enough production of raw materials during the next 50 years to convert Great Britain to an all-electric fleet of vehicles let alone the whole world. The rare metals produced mostly via mining in Africa, South America, and elsewhere just can’t support such a demand. The utopian dream of an all-electric fleet is nonsense. And as we have previously documented, mining capacity is just one of many reasons that this can’t be accomplished.
My other thought is this, isn’t large scale strip mining, slave labor, and filling the treasuries of depots and dictators somehow tainting the idea of zero emissions? I thought Liberals frowned on rich people living on the backs of the poor, but enough about how you iPhone was made.
Folks all this emission and electric vehicle talk is just a way to deny us the freedom of mobility that we have known all our lives.
Oh, if you haven’t hear, Yang’s stock is rising in the Democrat field.
Yang enjoyed a recent polling bump and is now in fourth place in the California primary ahead of formerly “top-tier” candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.).
2020’s election is about our way of life and direction of our country. Do you want California values or American values?