Report: Yes, Trump 'Plans to Fire the Entire Team' VERY Soon (Brace for...
Never Let The Truth Get In the Way of a Good Story: CBS...
Musk See TV: Elon Eyes Possible Purchase of Floundering MSNBC from Comcast
The End is Near: Axios Leader Screams Into Void as Darkness Engulfs Dying...
Hero Secret Service Agent Reflects on 61st Anniversary of JFK Assassination
Hello PROJECTION! Joy Reid Says Your Trump Supporting, Democracy-Ending Family Will 'Turn...
When Government Grants You the 'Right' to Die, They Will Eventually Give You...
Forgive Us If We Don't Shed a Tear Over Rachel Maddow Getting a...
Georgetown Law in HOT Water After Denying Pregnant Mom Exam Accommodations
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Democratic Senator Peter Welch Wants to Restore Funding for Terror-Loving...
JOY! Trans Activist Says LGBTQ People Need Guns to Threaten Women Who Won't...
Massive Hypocrite David Axelrod Bemoans Trump Possibly Politicizing the DOJ ... Just Like...
Take Heart, Florida Woman Pam Bondi was Made in 'The Swamp' and is...
Eric Adams Sounds Positively Sensible Calling for 'Involuntary' Removal of Dangerous Peopl...
Adam Schiff Has a 'Justice Denied' Hissy Fit After News Breaks About Trump's...

'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