cato institute

Failed Stimulus Spending Erodes America’s International Competitiveness, Wipes Out Wealth

by Hans Bader on July 4, 2011 · 2 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Stimulus to Nowhere

In the Daily Caller, Chris Edwards has an interesting article about why government spending doesn’t “stimulate” the economy over the short-run or the long-run. Rather than growing the economy, stimulus packages are typically wasteful wealth transfers akin to a “leaky bucket,” which harm the economy in the long run, whether or not there are any short-run stimulus effects.

As Edwards notes, “Despite ongoing federal deficits of more than $1 trillion a year, many liberals are calling for more government spending to ‘create jobs.’” But if government spending creates jobs, it’s hard to understand why unemployment has soared, even as government spending has exploded in recent years: “Federal spending has soared over the past decade. As a share of gross domestic product, spending grew from 18 percent in 2001 to 24 percent in 2011.” As he notes, “government spending and taxing creates ‘deadweight losses,’ which result from distortions to working, investment and other activities. The CBO says that deadweight loss estimates ‘range from 20 cents to 60 cents over and above the revenue raised.’ Harvard University’s Martin Feldstein thinks that deadweight losses ‘may exceed one dollar per dollar of revenue raised.’” Due partly to this “leaky-bucket” effect, Texas A&M economist Edgar Browning concluded that “It costs taxpayers $3 to provide a benefit worth $1 to recipients,” and that “today’s welfare state reduces GDP — or average U.S. incomes — by about 25 percent.”

[click to continue…]

Supreme Court: California’s Ban on Violent Video Game Sales to Minors Violates Free Speech

by Hans Bader on June 27, 2011

in Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Tech & Telecom

California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors has been struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment in a 7-to-2 vote. The only dissenters were Justices Breyer and Thomas. The opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, is here. CEI joined in an amicus brief in support of the challengers, and CEI’s Ryan Radia wrote an op-ed about the case you can find here. As Radia noted, “a comprehensive survey of the major scientific literature . . . found no established link between exposure to media violence and aggressive feelings in children . . . juvenile violent crime fell 36 percent . . . even as the popularity of video games skyrocketed.”

Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, who co-authored an influential amicus brief in the case, had the following to say about the decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association:

The Supreme Court scored an epic win for the First Amendment in striking down California’s prohibition on selling violent video games to minors.  The law was both overly broad—sweeping in a wide variety of games based on no objective standard and no age-based gradations—and underinclusive—with no restrictions on other types of media.  With a few strictly drawn exceptions for historically unprotected speech—obscenity, incitement, fighting words—government lacks the power to restrict expression simply because of its content.  And a legislature cannot create new types of unprotected speech simply by weighing its purported social costs against its alleged value.

“Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat,” Justice Scalia points out in his majority opinion.  “But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones.”

Moreover, the Court, citing Cato’s amicus brief, described how each generation’s new media produces consternation from adults who want to avoid the “seduction of the innocent” (to borrow a phrase from the attack on comic books in the 1950s).  In the 19th century, dime novels and “penny dreadfuls” were blamed for social ills and juvenile delinquency.  Later, Congress held hearings on the cartoon menace, which prompted the comic book industry to voluntarily adopt a ratings system. Backlash against certain kinds of movies and music caused those respective industries also to adopt voluntary ratings systems. And the video game industry too adopted an effective and responsive ratings system after congressional hearings in the early ‘90s. Not only is all this hand-wringing overwrought, but self-regulation and parental oversight have worked—evidence from the Federal Trade Commission shows that the voluntary ratings system works more effectively with video games than with any other medium—and they avoid First Amendment thickets.  Adding a level of governmental control, even if were constitutional, would be counterproductive.

[click to continue…]

Why Cross-Examination Rights Matter in Campus Sexual Harassment Cases under Title IX

by Hans Bader on June 7, 2011 · 3 comments

in Employment, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

As part of its broader attack on safeguards against false accusations, the federal Education Department is urging colleges to strip students and faculty of the right to cross-examine their accusers in disciplinary proceedings over alleged sexual harassment. In an April 4 letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, the Education Department said that it “strongly discourages schools from allowing the parties personally to question or cross-examine each other during the hearing.”

This is perverse, since the subjective nature of the legal definition of harassment means that there is no category of cases in which cross-examination is more useful or essential to ensure due process. To legally qualify as sexual harassment under Title IX, or racial harassment under Title VI, speech must be severe and pervasive enough to create a hostile learning environment for the listener, and interfere with the listener’s education, both in subjective and objective terms, according to court rulings like the Supreme Court’s 1999 Davis decision. Transitory offense is not enough. If the accuser admits on questioning that she did not really view the offensive speech as being a “big deal,” or was not shocked or surprised by it, that probably rules out the existence of a subjectively hostile environment. Indeed, a federal appeals court dismissed a racial harassment claim for just that reason in Newman v. Federal Express Corp., 266 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2001).

But a wrongly-accused person can’t establish that lack of a subjectively-hostile atmosphere without questioning the accuser, and may not be able to show that the accuser wasn’t greatly impacted by the speech without cross-examining the accuser about its alleged effect on her and her studies, such as whether she continued to enjoy her college experience after overhearing the allegedly “harassing” remarks.

[click to continue…]

Education Cuts Needed; Massive Spending Fuels Waste, Deficits

by Hans Bader on February 14, 2011

in Economy, Employment, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

Education expert Neal McCluskey earlier lamented the failure of House Republicans to propose meaningful cuts in education spending, “despite the fact that the ivory tower is soaking in putrid, taxpayer-funded waste. Quite simply, the federal government pours hundreds of billions of dollars into our ivy-ensconced institutions every year, but what that has largely produced is atrociously low graduation rates; at-best dubious amounts of learning for those who do graduate; ever-fancier facilities; and rampant tuition inflation that renders a higher education no more affordable to students but keeps colleges fat and happy.” Shortly thereafter, in an effort to trim the deficit, House Republicans came out with some additional cuts, proposing the elimination of some wasteful education programs.

If the GOP is reluctant to make cuts, Obama is much, much worse: he earlier sought to double education spending, and Obama’s recent State of the Union called for more increases in education spending (and other wasteful boondoggles at taxpayer expense), even though many students learn little in college. As we noted earlier, half “the nation’s undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college,” according to a study cited in USA Today. “36% showed little change” even after four years. Although education spending has exploded, students “spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago.” “32% never took a course in a typical semester where they read more than 40 pages per week.” States spend hundreds of millions of dollars operating colleges that are worthless diploma mills, yet manage to graduate almost no one — like Chicago State, “which has just a 12.8 percent six-year graduation rate.”

College degrees are delivering less and less, even as students graduate massively in debt. Law schools deceptively claim that virtually all their graduates get jobs. But they inflate their jobs figures by treating as success stories even students who end up working in low-paying non-legal jobs like “waiting tables at Applebees,” “stocking aisles at Home Depot,” or babysitting — or in part-time temporary jobs. And they sometimes hide joblessness by “losing track” of easy-to-locate nearby graduates who are jobless.  ”‘Enron-type accounting standards have become the norm,’ says William Henderson of Indiana University, one of many exasperated law professors who are asking the American Bar Association to overhaul the way law schools assess themselves.”

America already produces so many more liberal-arts graduates than it needs that 5,057 janitors have Ph.D’s or other advanced degrees. People who went to college due to rising college attendance rates mostly ended up in low-skilled jobs, even as their tuitions soared to pay for growing educational bureaucracies. Education spending in America is huge compared to most countries.

Image credit: Honeywell-Nobel Initiative’s flickr photostream.

Time for Big Cuts in Education Spending?

by Hans Bader on December 26, 2010 · 10 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment

America spends far more on education than countries like Germany, Japan, Australia, Ireland, and Italy, both as a percentage of its economy, and in absolute terms. Yet despite this lavish government support for education, college tuition in the U.S. is skyrocketing, reaching levels of $50,000 or more a year at some colleges, and colleges are effectively rewarded for increasing tuition by mushrooming federal financial-aid spending.  Americans can’t read or do math as well as the Japanese, even though America spends way more (half again more) on education than Japan does, as a percentage of income, according to the CIA World Fact Book.

In light of this, it is easy to see why some education experts like Neal McCluskey are floating the idea of “draconian education cuts“ to shake up a rotten educational establishment.

Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds at Instapundit notes that “some spending on educational institutions” may actually have a “negative” effect on education.  People endure useless college courses to get paper credentials, but they get their actual education elsewhere, through internships and work.  One of Professor Reynolds’  readers suggests that competition from “independent scholars” via the “internet” and elsewhere may improve education by providing competition with established universities that offer “little real education.”

Unfortunately, the colleges are well aware of this threat, and rather than improve themselves in response to competition, they are urging the government to crack down on one form of competition, for-profit colleges.  The Obama administration is now doing just that, waging a war on for-profit colleges, by subjecting them, but not traditional “non-profit” colleges, to so-called “gainful employment” rules that many non-profit liberal-arts colleges would flunk.  To try to rationalize this discrimination, the administration trumpeted a GAO report that has now been thoroughly discredited.

College tuition is often a rip-off, since most people who went to college because of rising college-attendance in recent years wound up in unskilled jobs (including janitors with Ph.D’s), and tuition is skyrocketing faster than housing costs did during the real estate bubble. (100 colleges charge at least $50,000 a year, compared to five in 2008-09.)

In recent years, spending on college administrators has risen massively. One study found an average increase of 61 percent, in inflation-adjusted terms, between 1993 and 2007; one leading university increased spending on administrators by 600 percent. Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation, while Obama seeks to double it. Spending has exploded at the K-12 level: per-pupil spending in the U.S. is among the highest in the world, and “inflation-adjusted K-12 spending tripled over the last 40 years.”

Image credit: Honeywell-Nobel Initiative’s flickr photostream.

Reactions to Court Ruling Striking Down Part of Obamacare in Virginia v. Sebelius

by Hans Bader on December 14, 2010

in Healthcare, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Yesterday, a federal judge in Richmond struck down Obamacare’s requirement that individuals buy health insurance. Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro reacts to the decision here in an article at CNN. Ilya was the principal author of an amicus brief filed on behalf of the Cato Institute and others in support of Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli’s lawsuit against Obamacare.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute and law professor Randy Barnett joined that brief, which you can find here. I am listed on the brief since I made a few suggestions that were incorporated into the brief based on my past experience in handling federalism cases (such as the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision).  The brief was submitted to the court by the distinguished Richmond lawyer Patrick McSweeney, who has won landmark cases (such as a no-taxation-without-representation case in the Virginia Supreme Court called Marshall v. Northern Virginia Regional Transportation Authority, a case that I earlier discussed at this link).

At Volokh Conspiracy, there are reactions to the decision from law professors Jonathan Adler and Ilya Somin.  I earlier discussed the constitutional issue in the case here, and more recently discussed the harm Obamacare inflicts on medical innovation, employers, the public and access to quality health insurance. The U.S. Attorney General and HHS Secretary responded to the ruling as well, as you can see here.

Ruling in Virginia’s Challenge to Obamacare Individual Mandate Expected Today

by Hans Bader on December 13, 2010 · 1 comment

in Healthcare, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

A ruling in Virginia’s constitutional challenge to Obamacare’s individual mandate is expected later today.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute joined in an amicus brief filed in support of Virginia’s lawsuit by the Cato Institute and constitutional law professor Randy Barnett.  You can find that amicus brief at this link.

Earlier, I discussed why the health care law’s individual mandate (requirement that individuals buy health insurance) exceeded Congress’s power under the Interstate Commerce Clause.  You can find that discussion at this link.  (I was a lawyer in the last Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law under the Commerce Clause, United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).)

The judge in the Virginia case, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, earlier rejected the government’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit at a preliminary phase (a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss).

Update: Judge Hudson rules against the Obama administration, finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Earlier, I discussed some of the bad effects of Obamacare on patients, employers, consumers, and the insurance market.

Obama’s Broken Pledge to Cut Wasteful Spending

by Hans Bader on September 16, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

When Obama was elected, he claimed he would “go through our federal budget– page by page, line by line–eliminating those programs we don’t need.” But as president, he seems to have forgotten about this pledge. The Cato Institute reminds him of it in a full-page advertisement in today’s Washington Post and other newspapers, identifying $525 billion he could cut annually from the federal budget by eliminating unnecessary or harmful programs.

For example, it notes that “Federal interference in housing markets has done enormous damage to our cities and the economy at large. HUD subsidies have concentrated poverty and fed urban blight, while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stoked the financial crisis by putting millions of people into homes they couldn’t afford. Getting the government out of the housing business will save $45 billion annually.” It also notes that “Federal workers enjoy far greater job security than their private sector counterparts—and far better total compensation: an average of $120,000 a year in wages and benefits. Cut federal compensation by 10 percent to save $20 billion annually.”

In 2008, Obama pledged to implement a “net spending cut,” but he has instead exploded government spending.  Federal domestic spending increased by a record 16 percent in 2010.  In 2010, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “President Obama’s policies would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.”

The Obama administration’s housing spending is particularly wasteful.  It is now using regulations and billions in tax dollars to promote more of the risky lending that led to the financial crisis.  It is ratcheting up affordable-housing mandates that created markets for junk sub-prime mortgages (thus spawning the mortgage meltdown, as even the liberal Village Voice has conceded), and it is increasing regulatory pressure on banks to make risky loans.  A $75 billion federal mortgage bailout program harmed the very real estate markets it was supposed to help.

Judge Lets Virginia Challenge ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate, Refusing to Dismiss Lawsuit

by Hans Bader on August 2, 2010

in Economy, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

A federal judge in Virginia has allowed the state’s lawsuit challenging the federal individual health care mandate to proceed: “A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.” The judge’s ruling is here.

Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, who filed a brief in support of Virginia that was joined by constitutional law professor Randy Barnett and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, issued the following statement:

Today’s ruling should finally silence those who maintain that the legal challenges to Obamacare are frivolous political ploys or sour grapes. The constitutional defects in the healthcare “reform” are very real and quite serious. Never before has the government claimed the authority to force every man, woman, and child to buy a particular product – and indeed such authority, whether claimed under the Commerce Clause or the taxing power, does not exist (as Cato’s amicus brief in the Virginia case argues). I look forward to further favorable rulings as these lawsuits progress.

I discussed Virginia’s lawsuit here, and the constitutional problems with the health care bill’s “individual mandate” here.

The so-called “individual mandate” is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

In Supreme Court rulings issued in 1995 and 2000, “the high court said the commerce clause is limited to economic activities that substantially affect interstate trade.”  (I was an attorney in the latter ruling, United States v. Morrison (2000).)  The health care law reaches beyond that to regulate pure inactivity, namely the refusal to buy health insurance even if you don’t need it (when I was young, I went for a decade without ever going to the doctor or dentist).  As UPI once noted, “the weight of Supreme Court jurisprudence seems to favor a Commerce Clause challenge” to the healthcare legislation.

Virginia’s lawsuit only raises federalism-based objections to ObamaCare.  There are other constitutional problems not raised in its suit.

The healthcare legislation also contains potentially unconstitutional racial preferences for minority applicants, and lower standards for treatment of patients in predominantly-minority institutions.  These drew criticism from the Civil Rights Commission.

Law professor Rob Natelson has raised additional constitutional objections to ObamaCare’s individual mandate.

Here’s an additional constitutional issue that occurred to me. Would requiring people to buy health insurance — and thus disclose private medical information to insurers — under government compulsion violate the Constitution by infringing their privacy rights, under rulings like Roe v. Wade and Robinson v. Reed, 566 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1978), which allowed a public employee to sue over invasive questions she was compelled to answer in a race-relations seminar? In one respect, it’s a stronger case than in Robinson v. Reed, because that case involved the government acting in its proprietary capacity, where civil liberties are subject to greater restrictions (see Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 673 (1994)), whereas the individual mandate involves the government acting in its regulatory capacity, where its actions and restrictions on civil liberties are subject to tighter limits. (See Carepartners LLC v. Lashway, 545 F.3d 867, 880 (9th Cir. 2008)(“regulated entities” enjoy more protection than government employees).) The fact that private insurers rather than the government would be collecting the information would not automatically obviate a constitutional claim, since the government effectively compels people to provide such information through the government penalties associated with the “individual mandate.” (See Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1916) (although private discrimination does not constitute state action or violate the Constitution, when state law requires the private employer to discriminate, the discrimination by the private employer then does become state action and does violate the Constitution).)

Blowout Prevention Act – Will Rs Get Buyer’s Remorse? (Modified July 18, 2010)

by Marlo Lewis on July 16, 2010

in Ethanol, Global Warming

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously approved H.R. 5626, Chairman Henry Waxman’s Blowout Prevention Act. Here’s the version of the bill as marked up and approved by the Committee. Here’s the earlier discussion draft on which the Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on June 30.

Like the discussion draft, the marked-up version of the bill is a Trojan Horse for restricting and, ultimately, shutting down deepwater oil production.

The most mischievous language is in the first substantive provision, Sec. (2).

Sec. (2)(a)(3) requires each applicant for a drilling permit to have an oil spill response plan ensuring “the applicant has the capacity to promptly control and stop a blowout in the event the blowout preventer and other well control measures fail” (p. 2). If the ongoing disaster in the Gulf has taught us anything, it is that once the blowout preventer and other well control measures fail, there may be no way “to promptly control and stop a blowout.” H.R. 5626 would establish a test no oil company can pass, a standard none can meet.

Nobody had the capacity to “promptly control and stop” the Macondo well blowout after the preventer and other well control measures failed — not BP, not the oil industry working as a team, not the federal and state governments working with the oil industry.

The sponsors had to know they were demanding the impossible when they drafted the bill. Consider these excerpts from a colloquy between Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson at the June 15 Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing:

Stupak: “So when these things happen, these worst-case scenarios, we can’t handle them, correct?”
Tillerson: “We are not well equipped to handle them. There will be impacts as we are seeing. . . .That’s why the emphasis is always on preventing these things from occurring, because when they happen, we’re not very well equipped to deal with them.”
Stupak: “. . . so no matter which one of the oil companies here before us had the blowout, the resources are not enough to prevent what we’re seeing day after day in the gulf, not only the loss of 11 people, but we’re on, what, day 56 or 57 of oil washing up on shores. There is no other plan. There is no way to stop what’s happening until we finally cap this well, correct?”
Tillerson: “That is correct. . . . There is no response capability that will guarantee you will never have an impact. It does not exist and it will probably never exist.”

The discussion draft’s permitting requirements apply to all “high risk” wells, defined expansively as any offshore well plus any onshore well having the potential to cause serious environmental harm in the event of a blowout. The marked-up version targets “covered wells” rather than “high risk” wells, but this is largely a distinction without a difference. Covered wells include all wells located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), plus any other well that, “based on criteria established by rule … could, in the event of a blowout, lead to extensive and widespread harm to public health, safety, and the environment” (pp. 41-42).

The OCS is defined (by reference to Sec. 1301 of the Submerged Lands Act) as waters lying seaward of three geographic miles from the coastline (p. 43). So H.R. 5626 would cover any deepwater well plus any shallow-water and onshore well where a blowout could lead to widespread environmental harm. Very few large wells would be exempt.

Presumably, operators could “promptly control and stop” a blowout at any onshore well and most shallow-water wells. Nonetheless, H.R. 5626 could effectively ban new wells in deep water, and deep water is the future of offshore oil and gas production. As the Department of Interior notes in its May 27 report, Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf, U.S. deepwater offshore oil production surpassed shallow water oil production in 2001, and in 2009, 80% of offshore oil production and 45% of offshore gas production “occurred in water depths in excess of 1,000 feet.” 

The bill does not clearly state how its requirements would apply to existing wells. Would an operator’s permit be revoked if he cannot demonstrate the capacity to “promptly control and stop” a blowout after the preventer and other well-control measures fail? If so, then the bill would not only block new deepwater drilling, it would also create a vehicle for shutting down existing wells. 

Sec. (2)(c) requires the operator to obtain a revised permit if he makes a “material modification” in well design, the blowout preventer, his plan to promptly stop a blowout, or his capability to begin or compete drilling of a relief well for a covered well. Apparently, then, an existing well would be subject to the new permitting requirements if it undertakes a “material modification.” In that case, however, the bill could discourage operators from making material improvements in well safety. Some might avoid or delay making safety improvements in order to avoid or delay becoming subject to an impossible standard. If I am reading these provisions correctly, H.R. 5626 could actually make offshore drilling less safe!  

Federal officials may not be able to finesse Sec. (2)(a)(3), even if they want to, because H.R. 5626 would empower “citizens” to enforce its provisions and associated regulations via litigation:

Any person having a valid legal interest which is or may be adversely affected may commence a civil action in Federal district court of appropriate jurisdiction on such person’s own behalf to compel compliance with this Act, or any regulation or order issued under this Act, or any regulation or order issued under this Act, against any person, including the United States, and any other government instrumentality or agency (to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) for any alleged violation of any provision of this Act or any regulation or order issued under this Act. [p. 28]

The discussion draft did not include the qualifier “valid legal interest.” But how difficult is it for an environmental group to demonstrate a “valid legal interest” in enforcing environmental laws and regulations? Enact the Blowout Prevention Act, and environmental groups will be able to sue any agency that fails to hold an oil company to an unattainable standard.

A few concluding thoughts. The security risks of dependence on petroleum imports are often hugely exaggerated, as the Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor and Peter van Doren explain. Nonetheless, the sponsors of H.R. 5626 view petroleum imports with alarm. If the bill kills the future of U.S. offshore production, our dependence on Saudi Arabia and OPEC will increase. Is that what the sponsors want?

Perhaps their core premise is that oil is so evil that any restriction on oil production is good, because it will hasten the arrival of a “beyond petroleum” future. Such thinking is dangerous folly.

Although oil spills are bad, oil is good. Without oil, there would be no modern commerce and no mechanized agriculture. Life for most of humanity, including most Americans, would be poor, nasty, and short. Indeed, many of us would not even be alive.

Killing the future of offshore production would increase consumers’ pain at the pump, destroy tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, and undermine the economy of the Gulf Coast region. A “beyond petroleum” future would likely be just as distant — or even more so, because a poorer America would have fewer resources to invest in technological innovation.

Petrophobes overestimate their ability to predict and control the future. Consider these examples. 

  • In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate requiring 10% of all new cars sold in California be electric vehicles by 2003. Ten percent of the California new-car market is about 150,000 vehicles. CARB had to backpeddle several times as it became apparent that consumers were not buying these costly, limited-range vehicles. In 2008, CARB reduced the mandate to 2,500 all-electric vehicles – a rollback of about 98%.
  • Congress in 2007 enacted a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring refiners to sell 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2011. Earlier this week, EPA announced it would reduce the 2011 target to 5 – 17 million gallons per year –  a 94-98% rollback.

It is not surprising that veteran petrophobes like Reps. Waxman and Markey (D-Mass.) drafted H.R. 5626. It is surprising that every Republican member voted for it too. Do any of them have buyer’s remorse? If not now, when?

← Previous Entries