WATCH: The New Naked Gun Trailer Drops With the PERFECT O.J. Simpson Joke
Flashback: Here's Nancy Pelosi Singing a (D)ifferent Tune on China, Trade Deficits, and...
‘Hmmm’: Adam Kinzinger Suspicious There Are No Tariffs on Russia
What a Peach! Watch Unhinged Leftist Crow About 'No FEMA' for Tornado-Impacted Red...
Tim Walz's Magical Media Tour Continues! He Tells MSNBC Voters Regret Electing Trump...
Not Even CLOSE, Bud! The Hill Wants Us to Believe the Pendulum Is...
Only 19% of Baltimore Kids Are Proficient in Math, So the District Spends...
Jamie Raskin Calls Fed. Employees Patriots, Claims They Pass Up MANY Rich Jobs...
U.S. Bans Romantic Relationships Between Gov Workers and Chinese Citizens, Eric Swalwell H...
EPIC Post from GenZ'r Explaining Why He's NOT Worried About His 401K DECIMATES...
Now That the Border Is Secure It's Safe for Dems to Go (Tom...
NBC News Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel to Get a Nurse's Opinion...
CNN's Abby Phillip Gets Fact Checked to Her Face!
HORSES**T! Stephanie Ruhle Tries Lecturing MAGA About What THEY Voted for but Dean...
Chuck Schumer Triggered By Elon Musk's Spot-On 1-Word Post About Dems Suing to...

'A New EPA Rule': @GOP Puts 'Biden's Latest Scam' Into 'Other Words'

AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

"Biden's latest scam is a new EPA rule requiring 70 percent of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. be electric or hybrid by 2032," tweets @GOP. "In other words, a ban on gas-powered vehicles."

Advertisement

Arbitrary regulatory quotas are not characteristic of a free market economy. Such a rule as proposed in the preceding tweet is wrong in its methodology and wrong in its action.

The first problem is that it circumvents the legislative process. An "EPA rule" would be a regulation by an executive agency, not a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. Something as sweeping as a requirement for all new vehicles sold should go through the legislative process. Going through that process may portend unfavorably for the agenda being pushed, which may indicate that such a requirement (or ban) is widely unpopular. It is for Congress to ensure that our nation is not plagued by arbitrary whims of the executive branch that could be devastatingly consequential to the economy. Because they cannot get the votes to pass something through Congress is not an acceptable reason for an administrative agency to attempt to impose a sweeping mandate on an industry and ultimately an economy. "Scam" is an appropriate term to describe an end-run around the authority of Congress that something such as this rule would be.

The second problem is that it circumvents the market process. "70 percent of all new vehicles sold" as decreed by "EPA rule" would be a percentage requirement by the government, rather than a percentage supplied based on consumer demand. That figure may be the product of government-think brainstorming, but it is little more than meaningless if does not reflect consumer demand. If by 2032 the demand for electric or hybrid vehicles is 70 percent of the overall demand for vehicles of all types, then the manufacture and supply of electric or hybrid vehicles will be forced to work toward meeting that demand. That is how the "invisible hand" (to invoke economist Adam Smith) of market demand drives the economy, as contrasted with the government all too visibly strong-arming a market into compliance. The markets for compact disks and VHS tapes are not what they used to be because consumers demanded alternatively, not because the government regulated them out of business. It could also be that in 2032 market demand remains overwhelmingly for gas-powered vehicles. Freedom comes with choices and reasons for choices.

Advertisement

Such an executive action would contribute to fundamentally overhauling an industry and threaten to undermine a free market economy, and it would do so through a process that would doubly sidestep the voice of the people.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement