If What the Teamsters Prez Told Tucker Carlson Is True It's No Wonder...
Merry Christmas: A Special Bonus Gift of Christmas Funnies Just for You
Simply ‘Wonderful’: Classic Holiday Film Reminds Generations It’s Okay to Cry at Christmas
A Lump of Coal in Her Stocking! Crypto Influencer Gets BURIED for Not...
Political Pivot? Many Question ‘Young Turk’ Cenk Uygur’s Sudden Willingness to Talk with...
'The View' Panelist Says Problem for Dems Is That Gov't Won't Regulate Social...
Man Vs. History: Bear Grylls Gets DROPPED by Community Notes for Awful Take...
Scott Jennings: Dem Party Must Flush the Fringe and Embrace Common Sense to...
HO HO OH LOL-NO! Leftist Mocked for Whining About the Midwest DAD We...
Bah Humbug! Dems Put Fetterman On The Naughty List
NewsGuard Rates the Headlines Covering Woman Set on Fire by Illegal
CNBC: Biden Administration Withdraws Student Loan Forgiveness Plans
'Mary Was An Earthworm:' J.K. Rowling Absolutely Roasts India Willoughby's Take on Christi...
University Employee Who Told Trump Supporters to Kill Themselves Sent Packing
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Still Pushing to Publish the Equal Rights Amendment With 'One...

'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