Minni-Frisco – Nanny-slators Introduce Lunacratic Auto Mandates
The DFL dominated Legislature is set to turn Minnesota into a cold version of hell when it comes to Automobile emissions, or rather, make us just like California.
Governor Pawlenty’s task force on climate change recommended that Minnesota consider adopting the standards, but there was considerable disagreement about the idea.
Now DFL Rep. Melissa Hortman from Brooklyn Park has introduced the measure at the legislature. Hortman says the standards would not only help Minnesota reduce its carbon footprint, they would save drivers money.
“Even though automakers and the California Air Resources Board estimate there could be an increased cost in purchasing of a new car, the amount of money that a consumer will save over the life of the car will more than make up for that.”
“Oh, There you go again.”
Let’s just get this out of the way: Tim Pawlenty should be shunned at future Republican Party events due to assembling this task force, and barred from speaking. If Conservative Republicanism were a nation, Pawlenty could be charged with treason for this act in my opinion.
As for this actual bill being introduced by Nanny-slator Melissa Hortman (D Brooklyn Park) will force Minnesota to join a cult that is trying to destroy the American way of life. Yes, I said it, the main goal of the environmental movement and this California emissions law is to kill the American automobile industry and with it the American way of life by removing Freedom and Liberty.
Several committee members, including chair Kent Eken, asked the auto industry representatives why it was taking the industry so long to gear up to address climate change. Eken reminded Greg Dana, from the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, how quickly Detroit converted from cars to tanks during World War II.
First off, since automobiles are not the prime source of the so-called greenhouse gas problem, why should they be the ones forced to destroy their own industry, just because a few Nanny-slators want to have a clean green conscious? Secondly, the problem with “detroit” just abandoning their current products and switching to the new mandated tin cans, is two-fold.
1) The technology does not exist at an economical level to implement the feel good junk science.
2) No one want to buy a tin can, room for your ass and a gallon of gas cars.
Detroit has started to offer greener vehicles. If you look at GM’s green lineup, they have been flooding showrooms with FlexFuel and micro cars, but sales are down. You see, feeling green, doesn’t sell well in America. Most people, that is outside the liberal utopias, need a vehicle capable of carting kids, groceries, and supplies from here to there.
A Toyota Prius or Chevy Aveo is about as useful to a family of 4 with a dog as a little red wagon. It looks grand in parades and makes for good green talk at the PTA meetings, but just doesn’t cut it for the daily life requirements of traditional American families.
And it gets worse, you see the Nanny-slators don’t give a damn that their green guilt is going to set Minnesota behind another 8-ball in the Midwest. Not only is Minnesota near the top of the highest taxed states in the nation, we’re quickly rac ing up the list of most oppressively regulated ones. This bill will make automobiles more expensive for Minnesotans to buy.
Other committee members wondered whether the standards would apply to snowmobiles or all terrain vehicles or airplanes — they won’t.
And they worried about Minnesota moving ahead of neighboring states and making itself uncompetitive.
Denny McNamara, Republican from Hastings, offered an amendment saying the law wouldn’t take effect in Minnesota until all neighboring states enacted the same law. That amendment failed.
Our founders must be spinning in their graves. It is just amazing that common sense and wisdom are minority positions at the Capital. And worse, that these are the people entrusted with power. Or actually, it appears that Minnesota’s Nanny-slators are going to entrust California policy makers to make laws in Minnesota.
Representative Tom Hackbarth, Republican from Cedar, said tying Minnesota to California’s rules, including future decisions by the California Air Resources Board, is a bad idea.
“We’re talking about an 11-member panel in California, that’s going to be regulating the state of Minnesota. That’s not the way to operate in our state. I don’t think our legislature wants to give away that kind of authority,” said Hackbarth.
In the end, enough members of this committee were willing to go with the California rules. The committee passed the measure, ten to seven. Bill author Melissa Hortman said she’d work with others to put what she called “comfort language” in the bill, so Minnesota could opt out of the California rules in the future.
Unconstitutional doesn’t even begin to describe what these Nanny-slators are doing. Un-Democratic and Un-American seem a closer fit.
This is the sort of thing one expects in tyrannical and dictatorial regimes, not in a free America. This is one of those situations where the Republican Party of Minnesota needs to abandon their no-policy policy and fight back, for the good of the state.
I guess the American experiment has run its course, and now it is time to turn over freedom and power, so that the DFL and green Republicans can turn this in to a totalitarian state where decisions are handed down to citizens by the aristocracy, bureaucrats, and ruling class.
Sphere: Related Content
A Toyota Prius or Chevy Aveo is about as useful to a family of 4 with a dog as a little red wagon.
I have a 2007 Chevy Aveo and with my family growing to 4 in May, I think it will do just fine, thanks.
Brent – congrats on your growing family. That is great! I hope for your sake that none of your kids play hockey because no way you are fitting hockey gear in the Aveo!
Seriously though, there are people in this world who need big vehicles. An Aveo is not going to haul a boat to the lake or a horse trailer to a rodeo. Are we not going to allow folks to participate in these types of activities anymore?
spurringirl thanks, although I’m sure that when my children are old enough to play hockey the Aveo will have been retired.
I don’t think that anyone proposes banning everything but subcompacts completely, there are certainly legitimate uses for large vehicles. But I think that too many people have purchased vehicles much larger then they really needed. This is unnecessary.
You would think that people would think ahead when they purchase a vehicle and consider if the gas price doubles and I’m driving 30 miles to work, will I be able to pay for the gas? Yet for some reason they don’t even when now still when the gas is $3 a gallon. Therefore I feel that the government does have a responsibility to “nudge” people into driving more appropriate vehicles for what their needs require.
I guess that is where we differ, because I don’t believe the gov’t should be telling people what to do. I believe in personal responsility, even if, as you state above, there are people who don’t think through their decisions or live within their means.
Obviously they are not going to ban all SUV’s, but making them prohibitively expensive is just as bad! I’m a productive member of society so that I can enjoy my personal freedoms on the weekends, be it trips to Andy’s cabin or traveling hockey trips. Things that would not be nearly as enjoyable or even possible w/out my SUV. So, please don’t take it away from me! And think ahead to what it is going to cost you to buy one if your family grows larger or your kids pick up expensive hobbies!
OK, so who kidknapped me and sent me to East germany or the Soviet Union? No seriously, isn’t this America, where freedom is the norm? Freedom to spend your money on what kind of car you want, what movie you go see, or what ever? Don’t we have the freedom to make decisions for ourselves, whether or not others agree with us?
If the American Government is now in the business of mandating our vehicles, maybe the American experiment has failed, and like previous democracies, so have we.
This is just amazing logic Brent. You’re going to use the Federal Government to “nudge” (read FORCE) people to buy what the Government says is good for them? That’s Stalinist and totalitarian thinking. That’s a dictatorship there pal.
This is a democratic country, so I don’t view it as a tyrannical measure that the government acts as a collective conscience for the community. We all have a right to a say in government and therefore a say in the how the community fucctions.
If would be one thing if things are a completely isolated independent activity. But most things aren’t, like like smoking and driving. If you can drive around by yourself in a gas guzzler and can afford to pay for the gas you might think that you are only affecting yourself. But, even then you are not, for instance, your gas-guzzling reduces the gas supply, raising prices for people who can’t afford to spend extra money on gas.
Government can be used for good to promote socially-desirable aims. Government has been used this way for decades both by conservatives and liberals. So, I think that the use of Feebates can be a very compelling way to help people make wiser vehicle purchases in this regard.
What right does the Government have to control our way of life?
I’m sorry brent, I really think you may be in the wrong party if you think it is a good thing for the Government to be the social conscious for the people. Now, you’re talking about a theocracy.
If your Neo-socialist law passed will the government then create a goon squad or SS to go round up all us non-conformists who refuse to drive a tin can so the gas doesn’t go so high?
You will have to pry my truck out of my cold dead hands. I dare anyone to tell me I have to buy a pos tin can that is incapable of doing what I need a vehicle to do. And if you get your fascist ideas passed and ban the production of them, I’ll make my own. When you throw me in jail, you will soon realize you’re being completely unDemocratic, and yes, I’m going to say it…… unAmerican.
Now, you’re talking about a theocracy.
I’m really not sure how fuel-efficient cars have to do with religion. Oh, you must be talking about Gore’s religion of Green.
Well, I guess if you can’t debate on facts, start throwing out scary words…
OK, let’s try this. I want Rep. Hortmann to provide us with a complete Environmental Impact Statement in her bill. I want to know EXACTLY how much global temperatures are going to come down if we do that, and what the economic effects of all that cold weather are going to be. Anything a private citizen wants to do seems to require an EIS these days, why shouldn’t governments be subject to their own laws?
How about we just pass a law against global warming? Wouldn’t that be easier?
“Therefore I feel that the government does have a responsibility to “nudge†people into driving more appropriate vehicles for what their needs require.”
Brent – where in the constitution does it say that government has the “responsibility” to tell people what to drive????? If I chose to drive a car that gets 10 miles to the gallon, whether gas costs $1.00 a gallon or $10.00 WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS OR THE GOVERNMENTS?
It’s my money…….
LL
“Anything a private citizen wants to do seems to require an EIS these days, why shouldn’t governments be subject to their own laws? ”
You’re joking right? Since when has the government ever followed it’s own laws?
LL