Biden-Harris HQ Is Campaigning for Donald Trump Again
White Students Protesting Slavery or Something? Cynthia Nixon Loses it on Rep. Nadler...
Antisemitism? Cenk Uygur Goes on Epic Rant About Jewish Power Over Media and...
Michael Moore Tells CNN 98 Percent of Student Protesters 'Don't Believe in Antisemitism'
Twitchy Favorites Weigh in on the U.S. Taking in Palestinian Refugees
Wading Into the Debate Over the Importance of Stay at Home Mothers
'Stunningly Unwise': Pastor Deserves ALL the Heat for Saying PTSD Isn't Real
The Onion Hilariously Weighs in on the Campus Encampments
VIOLATING THE LAW: UCLA Protesters Use Wristbands to ID 'Anti-Israel' Students, Give Them...
KJP Reminds Journo Asking About Biden's Current Silence That He Spoke Out About...
Chris Hayes, Rolling Stone Writer Say These Student Protests Are Pretty Standard
Tissue? Columbia Prof Says Faculty Didn’t Approve of Police on Campus
Joe Biden Tweeted a Mental Health Awareness Post and It Went Horribly Wrong
Columbia Clean-Up Crew, Can Frat Bros Save America?
KJP Not Concerned With Bird Flu Epidemic Affecting Cattle Because She Doesn't Eat...

'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