Arizona's new governor may abandon California greenhouse gas rules
There may soon be one less state that uses California's carbon dioxide emissions standards for motor vehicles: Arizona. Before leaving office, former governor Janet Napolitano (D) issued an executive order requiring the state's Department of Environmental Quality to adopt the rules that would effectively push fuel economy standards to 44 mpg by 2016. Napolitano has since moved on to become Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration and Republican Jan Brewer is now occupying the governors mansion.
Brewer is reconsidering the California rules and it seems likely that either she or the state legislature will rescind the earlier move. Sen. Sylvia Allen, (R) doesn't think most of her colleagues support the move to adopt the California standard and they want to abandon it before the EPA reverses its original decision to reject California's waiver application on the rules. This is a move unlikely to be followed by other states that have adopted the California rules.
[Source: Arizona Daily Star]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Max 2:36PM (2/23/2009)
Surprise surprise, a Republican against tougher greenhouse gas regulation. Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Why do 99% of Republican need to be such d**cks?
Reply
jharlan 1:42PM (2/23/2009)
You go girl! Finally, someone who understands what pie in the sky socialism will do to an economy if left unchecked. Arizona, a state that governs with some common sense. Their neighbor, the peoples republic of California, is doing everything in it's power to kill it's businesses by overegulation and raise the cost of living for it's people by taxation. When the terminator is finished trying to please a self serving, tax loving, socialist legislature, will the last business to leave California please turn ou the lights?
Reply
Tim 1:54PM (2/23/2009)
It's OK when California ignores federal law when the Federal Gov't over reaches it's Constitutional limitations, but it's NOT O.K. when others do?
Typical liberal Hypocrisy.
Unfunded mandates or the federal gov't returning tax funds back to the States with LOTS of strings or future unaffordable state costs has become a HUGE problem.
It's so bad in fact that 21 States are Claiming Sovereignty under the 9th & 10th Amendments to the Constitution (AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA) in effect telling the federal gov't to go screw itself.
http://www.infowars.com/21-states-claiming-sovereignty/
Is this just a prelude to succession from socialism?
Reply
Nick 7:03PM (2/23/2009)
Tim:
What does regulating greenhouse gases to go with socialism???
Gotta love conservative bigots (what do they conserve besides gun rights and death penalty anyway?), immediately throwing accusations of "socialism".
Tim 7:15PM (2/23/2009)
Do you even know what Socialism is? How about fascism? Marx? Central Planning? Fiat currency? Redistrbution? Supply vs. Demand free market economics? The 9th & 10th Amendments to the Constitution... our supreme law?
Have you even read the Constitution... ever?????
Any of this ring a bell or are you a complete drooling comrade moron?
Unconstitutional Federal Regulation = Socialist/Statist Central Planning...
IT NEVER WORKS THE WAY THE PLANNERS THINK IT WILL BECAUSE THEY ARE DROOLING LIBERAL MORONS TOO!
Mike!!ekiM 8:01PM (2/23/2009)
Don't you love it when these Alzheimer Republicans respond.
Just because you'se guys will be gone in 10 years doesn't mean we don't save the planet for our kids and grandkids.
The OIL LOBBY has for 8 years corrupted the will of the people. That's not in the constitution either. We Live Free to enact laws to save the planet is DEMOCRACY, against the will of the Crack Pot ARISTOCRACY.
Tim 8:12AM (2/24/2009)
Mike!!ekiM
I can tell from your ignorant comment that you don't even understand the difference between a Representative Republic and a Democracy.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." We are a Republic and NOT a "democracy".
Read & learn the difference before engaging ignorant comment:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
"Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man."
Nobody has rights in a Democracy that the mob can't give and take away with a simple vote. To control the majority and rule the nation only takes a good ad campaign on TV and that's why it is really a "mobocracy" or mob-rule.
Please read more, smoke less weed and watch less TV before you comment on our system of Gov't. Go back and graduate High School. That might help a little.
Carney 12:52PM (2/24/2009)
Tim, you're good at dragging in controversial irrelevant side issues and riling everyone up, leaving the TOPIC AT HAND forgotten.
At this point why not mention abortion, guns, homosexuality, Scientology, circumcision, vaccination's supposed connection to autism, the JFK assassination, slavery, the Holocaust, and whether the ancient Egyptians were black?
Meanwhile you never responded to my offer here http://tinyurl.com/c5patb (post #14 time stamped 3:51pm), other than with bizarre screeching about how our piddly $10 billion ethanol subsidies will cause blood in the streets and the end of civilization while you ignore the ACTUALLY statist oil cartel OPEC's hundreds of billions of billions of dollars it loots from us.
Tim 1:11PM (2/24/2009)
Carney,
Thanks for mentioning all that "stuff" so I didn't have to and I did not respond because it was a waste of my time talking to a wall. I have my standards.
Carney 2:08PM (2/24/2009)
Tim, on talking to a wall, I went out of my way to show you how my proposal not only fails to grow Big Government or expand its size and scope, but in fact shrinks it substantially. But even extensive efforts to tailor a move to alcohol fuel to meet your absolutist standards is met with a hysterical rant about off-issues.
What I'm most astonished by is how later on you endorsed on putting a floor under gasoline prices. Isn't that statism, socialism, evil Satanic-Marxist interference in the free market in violation of the 10th Amendment etc.?
Tim 2:30PM (2/24/2009)
Carney,
You're right. A price floor under oil is central planning and price fixing.
I stand corrected and thank you for pointing that out. I must have been tired when I mentioned it.
Ethanol is just fine as long as my tax dollars or children’s debt doesn’t subsidize it (or anything else).
ANY redistribution or FEDERAL central planning is Unconstitutional PERIOD. It strengthens a Statist Federal monopoly contrary to the competition of the several States and shifts the liberty and power away from We, the people and to the Oligarchy currently in power in the Federal Gov’t or Federal judiciary.
As an adult I realize that if you don't like it something, then you must work to change it.
Ignoring or "reinterpreting" the Constitution just because you don’t like it has led to Federal TYRANNY of endless regulations, redistribution from the productive to the non-productive and debt-slavery. Ignoring the Constitution has collapsed the world's last superpower of it's own debt.
Carney 3:57PM (2/24/2009)
Again, Tim, let's say everything you just said is true.
But my proposal (to have a flex fuel mandate and a potential tariff of foreign oil replace our current center-rear tail light mandate and our tariff on foreign ethanol) in no way makes the situation worse.
Furthermore, it is a rifle shot to the heart of what can only be described as a monstrous statist conspiracy, OPEC, that is fanatically hostile to the very freedom you so passionately proclaim a desire to defend, and which currently uses the wealth of the free, tolerant, producitve, and humane sectors of the world to spread propaganda undermining the West's message of freedom everywhere, including within our borders (jails, madrassas, etc.), not to mention active WAR against us. Isn't OPEC far more obnoxious to you than a flex fuel mandate proposal?!
Finally, I also offer an elimination of the Hydrogen Hoax so as to constitute a net REDUCTION of Big Government.
What's not to like?!?
Tim 4:41PM (2/24/2009)
Carney said:
(yack yack yack) "What's not to like?!?" (yack yack yack)
"mandate and a potential tariff " (yack yack yack)
So you're saying that the US Statism can be better than OPEC Statism? Is that like saying that rape is OK when we do it, but not OK when they do, or that if they commit rape that makes it O.K. for us to because they did?
Yep, you're a liberal/progressive/socialist so you may as well give up. I'll NEVER agree with your perverted paradigm of Statism "compromise" because I am a patriot who believes in LIBERTY.
A little Tyranny or a lot of Tyranny depends on how much of your freedom you're willing to give up to the State. You say that some is OK. I (and the Constitution) say that NONE is OK if it's not allowed by law and ANY and EVERY law that is not Constitution is irrelevant and non-binding.
Sorry. Read the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence and…
ANTI-Federals papers. (you’ll love them and learn a lot too)
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
Perhaps the next time we “talk” you’ll have a more solid foundation regarding our Republic, its founders, individual liberty and personal responsibility.
Next subject.
Carney 2:03PM (2/26/2009)
OK Tim, so let's say you're a Congressman and you have a bill in front of you to get rid of 50% of government taxation, regulation, litigation, spending, and intervention that you believe is unconstitutional or even if it is unconstitutional then a bad idea from a policy perspective. The Senate passed it and the President promised to sign it. The whole House of Representatives is hushed as you approach the voting machine, because it's tied up 217 to 217. You stick your card in and your finger approaches the buttons.
Which do you press, "Yes" or "No"?
Would you vote yes on the bill, because it has a positive effect in taking the country closer to your principles?
Or "no", dooming the bill for that session of Congress and keeping government far bigger, bossier, and more expansive than you believe is wise, moral, and legally legitimate?
Carney 2:06PM (2/26/2009)
Oops I said "even if it is unconstitutional then a bad idea from a policy perspective."
I meant "even if it is CONSTITUTIONAL", because I'm guessing there are plenty of things Congress is permitted to do even from a hardcore strict constructionist perspective that you wouldn't like.
Tim 2:23PM (2/26/2009)
Carney, as with most typical liberals, you're arguments are NOT thought out completely.
If a bill is Unconstitutional, then it has no effect legal effect in the first place PERIOD.
Voting to "repeal" an illegal law is irrelevant because it was not legal in the first place. How can you have "rule of law" if the public policy is unlawful? If you understood what we are discussing, you would know this.
Your argument has no merit.
We NEED the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary to do their jobs and APPLY the Constitution instead of interpreting/making law from the bench. Activists belong in the legislature where laws are made and NOT the court system where laws are applied.
You have never studied our system of gov’t, have you?
Carney 3:19PM (2/26/2009)
Tim, you dodged the question. How do you cast your vote?
Tim 3:43PM (2/26/2009)
Carney,
I'll try again.
How can you vote for or against something that does not exist because it is illegal?
The question is moot and the unconstitutional public policy should be simply stricken by the court system rather than voted on. One can not vote to undo a thing that was not done in the first place because it was illegal.
Carney 4:06PM (2/26/2009)
You dodged the question again, "Congressman" Tim. You're standing in the House of Representatives, all eyes on you. Debate has ended and you are not recognized by the Speaker to talk. All you can do is cast your vote: Yes, No, or Present.
I remind you that the bill does not affirm anything you dislike or consider illegitimate. All it does is eliminate activities you dislike or consider illegitimate. The sole objection you could have to it is that it does not eliminate ALL the things you dislike or consider illegitimate. After voting Yes on this bill you could go on voting No to all bills funding or (re)authorizing activities you dislike.
So, and again, you are not speaking, only voting. There is no "divert attention and dodge question with side issues button". There are only Yes, No, and Present buttons.
HOW DO YOU VOTE, TIM?
gorr 3:20PM (2/23/2009)
These lawmakers are not leading the way.. They study humanity by making an official regulation about all they see and hear by reflex because they don't feel be part of humanity. They don't trust nobody and they need 'official' things to protect themself. Actually they are destroying earth at a rapid rate with the help of bloggers, journalists, goverment employees, nascar, sunoco, exxon, us army, gm, ford, chrsler, senators, banks, abc studios, hollywood artists, general public buying and burning diesel and gasoline and buying and using coal electricity, german goverment, audi, volks, porsche, mercedes, bmw, japanese goverment, yamaha, kawasaki, freightliner, u.s airway, canadian steamship line, panama container ships, toshiba employees going to work with cars or motorcycles, budda, catholic, mahamed, harley davidson, brasil, tar sands, farmers, racing fans worshipping race events, bloggers connected to internet via coal electricity, And more
Reply