"Driving in a New Direction" - Editorial rebuttal

The daily Oregonian puts this editorial in their second slot today. In it, they attempt to cheer for President Obama and gloss over all the problems associated with his "climate change" initiatives, particularly the one he expressed yesterday about trying to ram a CAFE change down the auto industry's throat in too short a time.

The editors said,

"That's a dramatic, but shrewd, acceleration. It may put the automakers in more of a crunch, but it pushes them towards a much stronger economic position in the long run."

Sorry, I disagree. Firstly, it ISN'T "shrewd" at all to kill off the automakers before they ever get any of the wunder-cars out the door. Their position is so precarious now that ANY economic forcing will probably drive them into Chapter Eleven. Secondly, the "much stronger economic position in the long run" has yet to be either calculated, or written down into a business model. It is pure blue-sky supposition at this point.

The other thing we noted that Obama was strong on yesterday was countermanding POTUS Bush43's order to the EPA refusing Kalifornica's "right" to impose it's overly-strident anti-pollution regulations on the entire automobile industry, not just on the cars that are for sale in Kali. Bush43 was correct to do that, since the Federal Government DOES have a regulatory interest here that is being usurped by individual states. Federal Courts have held that a State may restrict or control what pollutants are emitted into the air in that state's own airshed, but MAY NOT control what other states allow in THEIR air. Kali has ZERO legal basis for attempting to force it's standards on the rest of the country. It has even less of a scientific basis for doing so since it is a state upwind (generally) from all the rest of the country.

The editors state their position, then, in the next sentence, deny that position:

"Let's stop right here and acknowledge that a single Federal standard in both realms, of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas regulation, would be ideal. Obama should be pushing for just such uniformity. But giving the states that are ready to lead a license to go forward could be the quickest route to a federal standard on greenhouse gasses."

Wow! Just Wow! The Editors are telling us what the best idea is, then they advise us to accept a countervailing idea. This is really all about State's Rights vs. Federal Rights. The Oregonian Editorial Board manages to advocate both in the same breath, for the same subject. THAT deserves some sort of "Impossibility Award". It's also a very slippery slope. The Founders were careful to write guidance into the Constitution spelling out what was a State right and what was a Federal right, then they also wisely provided the Supreme Court for deciding conflicts between the two, for any future claims which might arise.

Writing on the same subject, US Rep. Peter DeFazio (D, 4th District, Lane County) advises that the "cap and trade" system advocated by both Governor Kulongoski and President Obama will not work. His letter is a good read. Pete DeFazio can be left of Karl Marx at times, but about half the time he is directly on the path of common sense. This is one of those common-sense times.