Federal Government Abdicates Authority

Federal Government Abdicates Authority
By Peter H. Lester, Sr.
March 24, 2007

In case you have not figured it out – I am pretty “Laissez Faire” when it comes to my view of government. I would prefer that the government just sit it out and let us “do our thing.”

There are a few areas where I have decided that I would like the government to set a few standards. Here are a few:
- I like the fact that 12 year olds are not mining coal.
- I am glad my wife and women of all races for that matter – can vote; moreover, I am pleased we can all enter the workforce with certain expectations and fewer obstacles.
- I am thinking “separate but equal” was really only separate.
- I appreciate the fact that a symbol of our nation, the Bald Eagle, has recovered from the brink of extinction and I do think the government should protect "the commons" from exhaustion. Having said this, I do prefer that this be accomplished through protecting property rights and the court system.
- Lastly, it is an understatement that I prefer to have clean air and water.

I am not sure any of these things would have happened – or at least happened when they did, without the federal government stepping in and saying – “let’s fix this.”

The current paralysis in Washington, D.C. has led two states to act. Interestingly, one is one of the largest, and one is one of the smallest: California and Vermont. The states have acted because of the perception that the federal government is not reacting quickly enough and neither is the private sector.

The issue the states have addressed is car emissions.

In December, California won the right to regulate the emissions of vehicles. The law was passed in an attempt to curtail Greenhouse emissions, which have been blamed for global warming. The automobile manufacturers maintain that this is really just a way to require them to build more fuel-efficient cars. In court their attorneys pleaded that the only way to reduce emissions was to ensure that the cars burn less fuel – and only the government has the authority to establish fuel efficiency guidelines.

The argument fell on deaf ears, and the ruling will now be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court and possibly the Supreme Court.

The point is – here is a case-in-point where the Federal Government should be stepping up the pressure in a certain area. However, their failure to act has resulted in a State flexing its muscle. Undoubtedly, as the central government becomes unable or unwilling to support or pass legislation desired by the citizenry, the states will have to assume the responsibility.

In August, a Federal Judge in Vermont ruled on a case that was very similar, and the outcome was the same.

It is one thing for a citizenry to say we want "x" fixed. It is another thing for them to want to pay for it.

Proponents of the free market have stated that consumers have consistently proven that they prefer their gas-guzzling SUVs to more fuel efficient cars. It is the case that history would tell us that as demand increases, industry typically responds by reallocating resources to provide satisfy that demand. As more products are produced, efficiencies are achieved and prices fall.

Now with the new mandates, industry is compelled to respond.

Time will tell just how progressive this legislation is and if consumers are willing to vote with their dollars and purchase more fuel efficient cars.

QUESTIONS for STUDENTS of ECONOMICS:

1. What factors would compel an entire industry to band together and fight a law?
2. Aside from a government mandate, what factors would compel a company to produce a car that was more environmentally friendly?
3. (This question is one for the Political Science Majors) Do you think this is an issue for the State Governments to address or the Federal Government.