« The (inter)national cancer of public service unions | Main | A Ray of Hope or … »

13 November 2011

Comments

Steve Frisch

Actually George, this debate did not occur here did it? I thought it occurred over on Russ's blog:

http://2012nevadacounty.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/rep-darrel-issa-paging-carb’s-mary-nichols/#respond

And it was not over AB 32, it was over CAFE standards, and the contention by Darrel Issa that the state of California by setting its own fuel economy standards interfered with federal processes to establish fuel economy standards, and his request to question California officials over the issue.

And I think my point was that it is inconsistent to oppose California establishing its own fuel standard when you are advocating for every state to be able to set their own standards for health care. Both issues are governed by the same constitutional principle, the commerce clause.

So, in short, your entire post is based on inaccurate information, an untrue characterization of my comments, and a false definition of the logical fallacy at play.

But I am flattered that you would call me an intellectual. I don't consider that an elitist sign of disconnect with the American people as many of your posters here do.

Russ Steele

Steven F,

The issue is not about if CA had the right to set green house gas emissions standards under AB32, it is about CARB’s influence in setting milage standards since these had been given under CAFE to NHTSA, not to the EPA or the White House, yet Mary Nichols held secret meetings with both by her own admission to implement millage standards under AB32. Here are some details from an article in Land Line Magazine.


“In light of these concerns, I am expanding the Committee’s investigation into the activities of CARB leading up to the agreement for fuel economy standards MY 2017-2025,” Issa wrote. “I respectfully request your cooperation with this investigation.”

CARB spokesman Stanley Young said CARB is working on a response to Issa’s letter.
“Chairman Nichols welcomes the opportunity to respond to the letter,” Young told Land Line Magazine. “We do want to make it clear that, as for the claim of ‘apparent’ violation of federal law, we have federal court decisions in Vermont and California that definitively indicate that ARB’s vehicle standards are not fuel economy standards.”

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer blasted a process that would allow a state regulatory body to set federal policy.

“Given the level of incompetence coupled with blatant arrogance exhibited by CARB in California on truck emissions, to think they could be calling the shots nationally is a disaster with far-reaching consequences almost too terrifying to comprehend,” Spencer said.

California’s actions in setting fuel economy standards may have violated federal law, Issa said in the letter. Congress has delegated fuel mileage authority to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

CARB’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions involve fuel economy regulation, Issa wrote, even touting the “cost-effective” nature that CARB’s greenhouse gas rules create for vehicle owners.
“In summary, it appears that CARB and the state of California are in the business of regulating fuel economy standards, in direct contravention of the law,” Issa wrote.

ooo

Issa’s Nov. 9 letter concludes with 18 questions, including many multiple-part questions, as well as requests for documentation of the negotiations between CARB, EPA and the White House. The committee wants to know what technical research in the EPA rule was provided by CARB, which CARB staffers worked on negotiations, and whether group meetings between the agencies were avoided in favor of tightly controlled meetings.

“Do you believe that a closed and secretive process is the best approach for regulating an industry that affects nearly every American?” one question reads. “If no, explain in detail why CARB agreed to participate in such a process.”

So, the issue is not about States Rights, it about the intrference of CARB in a federal mandated process, which they had no legal standing and it was done in secert.

bill tozer

Dr Rebane, your excellent article is demonstrated in true fashion by the first two comments posted above. Guess it really does matter when, not the substance, lol. And you are a big fat liar to boot!. I do wonder if anyone of the "when" aka, YOU started it first or anyone of the good ole name calling sides ever read your articles or simply skim over looking for a opportunity to come up with the ole "Hey, he started it and you are stupid" comments. These first two posts are perfect examples of your last sentence. "Make no mistake about it, the stuff we tackle here is hard enough as is without wandering off into logical la-la lands." So very predicable.......

George Rebane

SteveF 410pm – You are correct that your remark was specifically on California’s fuel economy standards (which does have an AB32 element). My remark in the post was directed to this comment on NC2012 – see your last sentence with my emphasis.

stevefrisch says:
November 9, 2011 at 22:35

Yeah, lets see the CAFE standard (the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards) is set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The law enacting the standard is signed by President George W. Bush in 2007. It is a federal standard.

The 9th circuit court rules that the standard is too low. Obama negotiates a deal with all of the major auto manufactures that fixes the fight going on in the courts.

In the mean time, California creates fuel economy standards on a state-wide basis, which is consistent with the negotiated standard, and because it is the biggest single state market in the nation auto makers decide to follow suit.
Seems like Issa is barking up the wrong tree. If he has a problem with the fuel standard he can pass a law in Congress lowering the standard.

Besides, how do you see opposing California’s standard as consistent with your belief in states rights?

George Rebane

Administrivia - Jeff Pelline's ad hominem droppings deleted.

bill tozer

It is all Bush's fault so I hereby absolve myself from anything I post or do from here to eternity. All arguments must be subservient to the trump card I hold: Its Bush's Fault. With that said, a wise man once told me years ago when I was facing a mountain of problems something to the effect: "When you wake up and find yourself up to your neck in quicksand and sinking fast, the first thing you ask yourself is how to get out of here, not how did you get here. You will have time later to figure out how you got there, but now the first question is how do get yer ass out of here before you go under."

Todd Juvinall

I have a new ad hominem attacker named M. Mooers over on my blog. I think these lefties are trained in the same schools by the same teachers. They are so boringly similar in their attacks. My golly, the fellow on my blog is writing the Steeve Enos/Frisch words almost verbatim.

I think the problem is one of DNA. These liberals have to be motivated by some sort of DNA hormone emanating from some unknown organ they seem only to possess. I know hundreds of people in our community and the liberal seem to be the only ones stuck in a similar rut of thought. The conservatives seem to be more open to ideas and can even be swayed by a good argument. Liberals are unable to achieve even a semblance of change, they are stuck in mid 1800's socialist thought.

Russ Steele

Todd, it is the liberal brain? Scans show liberals and conservatives have different brain structures

A new study shows that brain structure may have something to do with which side a person lands on the political scale, researchers told LiveScience.

Researchers at Britain's University College London scanned the brains of nearly 120 adults who ranked their political views on a scale of one to five from very liberal to very conservative.

The results showed that those who considered themselves conservatives had a larger amygdala, a part of the brain that processes fear. Liberals tended to have a bigger anterior cingulate cortex, which monitors conflict and uncertainty.

Details HERE.

D. King

Maybe this will help.

CARB – Diesel Emissions Overestimated 340%

http://www.examiner.com/ecopolitics-in-los-angeles/calif-climategate-part-ii-air-board-s-340-pollution-error

I wonder if hanging an exhaust filtration system on trucks will change their MPH. Just kidding, it will.

So, the larger overestimation, the more restrictive the filter and the lower the MPH. Yeah?

More info on Russ's site. Interesting people, these CARB folks.

D. King

Oops My comment is awaiting moderation on Russ's blog.

D. King

Thanks Russ.

Todd Juvinall

Russ thanks for the link on the difference in a libs and conservatives brains, I thought the libs didn't have a brain they just live on emotions. LOL. I see the usual suspects from the left are emoting over here again. What a hoot!

George Rebane

For the record - the study announcing the finding of physiological differences in liberal and conservative brains that I have been citing was posted here
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/04/hardwiring-the-right-and-left.html

Steve Frisch

In your twisted delivery of the points above each and every one of you is still missing the key point; your position is inherently inconsistent with your pro states rights position. If you believe in states rights and do not believe the commerce clause should extend to imposing national standards (which is your key argument against national health care) California has a perfect right to set its own fuel economy standard.

Barry Pruett

Interstate commerce clause - Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with among the several States. It is well-settled law that Congress can impose transportation standards in connection with interstate commerce. For instance, if different states have different standards for trucks, one would have to change vehicles when entering California as a truck from Illinois may not comply. Thnis type of activity was exactly what the framers intended to thwart. In the future, the tenth amednment will play a larger role in constitutional law, and we will see a roling back of federal authority under the commerce clause. Healthcare is and will be one of these cases.

D. King

Well said Barry.

D. King

"...California has a perfect right to set its own fuel economy standard."

Even if the numbers are mangled / faked by an unelected board of flat assed bureaucrats?

http://2012nevadacounty.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/rep-darrel-issa-paging-carb%e2%80%99s-mary-nichols/#comment-866

Todd Juvinall

Barry, well done. Nice smackdown of the "smarter than the average bear" fellow.

Barry Pruett

This just in...the Supreme Court will hear the Obamacare case that emanates from Florida. They will hear the Florida case which held that the mandate was a violation of the commerce clause. The ruling from the Supreme Court should come out around June 2012.

bill tozer

The left always takes an issue and runs it to the ridiculous extreme to make their point and justify their position. If someone is for property rights, then the counter argument is that person secretly wants to poison his well and pollute the water table of his community. The War Between The States did not obviate states' rights as some would like to believe. Concerning Obamacare, one would have to argue a national defense issue to rationalize, then justify, the mandate using the Commence Claus. Health insurance is not sold across state lines as each state has its own insurance commissions and state run regularity boards which sets the rates and coverage providers must adhere to. But it is the individual mandate that is the real issue here, although the proponents love to use the Commence Claus. Can the Federal Government force me to buy something solely because I am alive and residing within its borders? Can any individual be coerced to purchase a product by the Feds simply because one has breathing air? This is where States Rights come in. A State can make me carry an ID, so I need to purchase a California State ID if I opt out of having a CDL. Probably costs about 10 bucks. That is the state, not the Feds. Federal passports are not free either, but no citizen is required to have a passport or travel abroad. I believe a state can set its own standards, as evidenced by a recent trip to Montana. I pulled into a gas station and the pumps looked rather odd, yet vaguely familiar. The nozzles did not have the black foreskin you have to pull back to dispense petro. Nope, just the metal nozzle that pumps faster and doesn't always click off like we used to have here. What a joy to have effortless pumps back if even only for a few minutes. States Rights.

Ben Emery

So much to talk about but I will stick to the obamacare. I like Paul don't like it because it isn't the answer. Our so called "representative" likes to throw out that 53% of Americans don't like it while implying we all agree on the reasons. No in fact more Americans don't like it due to the fact there was no public option than for the reasons Mr McClintock and my guess a majority at RR. I will say this if obamacare is allowed to be fully implemented, remember it doesn't come into play for another couple years, most people will like what the law has done. We need to move towards a state by state single payer insurance program.
http://www.healthcareforall.org/

Mikey McD

Health care is not a right. BTW, I just got a huge credit from my health insurance company (again). I choose free markets/competition (big surprise) over government force, discrimination and anti-constitution BS.

D. King

Obamacare:

You must buy this because you are alive.
If you do not buy this because you are alive, you must rot in jail until you are not alive.

Does that sum it up?

Mikey McD

D. King nails it again!

Douglas Keachie

We obviously need a new source of energy:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150393617978360&set=a.379473193359.158222.290539813359&type=1&theater

You probably need a Facebook account to view this. And GG, remember what I said about not taking me too literally...

The other images in the series are great too. Click to the right and left to see them.

D. King

Very funny Doug!

Steve Frisch

Another example of a deceptive logical fallacy: George said in his post "a leading local Leftwing intellectual strongly argues", clearly referring to me.

I reply, " I am flattered that you would call me an intellectual"

George concludes, " We are fortunate to have Mr Steve Frisch step forward, identify himself, and accept the above bestowed ‘Left intellectual’ mantle."

What George does not acknowledge is that I did not accept the "left" portion of the statement, only the intellectual portion of the statement.

Consequently George is misrepresenting both my position and my ideology, as USUAL!

Todd Juvinall

George, I did go and look at the SBC filings an WOW! It looks like as of 2009 the SBC burned through about 6 million dollars and was going upside down real bad. There was no Schedule B listing the contributors so I now understand why StevieF was reluctant to supply a link. I would say the SBC is on the ropes. I also appears they get the bulk of their money from the taxpayers.

Here is the link.

http://oag.ca.gov/charities/charity-research-tool#Location:Summary

George Rebane

Todd - there are hundreds of non-profits registered here in the county that are basically funds forwarding shills to all kinds of, overwhelmingly liberal, activities in the state. I understand that these forwarding non-profits exist basically to hide the money trail to the end users. Does it appear that SBC is so engaged; I can't imagine SBC spending that much money on its own projects.

It would also be interesting to know who finally gets the money and for what purposes.

Paul Emery

George

Does your scrutiny of non profits include conservative non profit tax-exempt organizations such as the Heritage Foundation?

"Governed by an independent Board of Trustees, The Heritage Foundation is an independent, tax-exempt institution."

http://www.heritage.org/

D. King

The most transparent ever!

http://patdollard.com/2011/11/report-80-of-green-energy-loans-given-to-obama-donors-less-than-10-actually-qualified/

Green energy rules!

Todd Juvinall

SBC 's filings since 2002 appear to be missing a lot of relevant information for the inquiring mind. Now I am no expert but even my limited knowledge of income and expense would make me scratch my head in wonder how all those millions were spent. It looks like a ot goes to the Exec and his/her benefits. But, I think a forensic accounting of SBC would be very helpful to those few members it now seems to have left.

Mike Thornton

Yup, ya gotta watch those "liberals", but don't bother about the racist conservatives calling for outright "war"!

http://yubanet.com/usa/SPLC-Intelligence-Report-War-Rhetoric-Intensifies-on-the-Radical-Right.php#.TsM5X1awVic

Steve Frisch

Todd, your limited experience in business is showing!

As I posted on another thread, (titled: "The International Cancer of Public Unions Posted by: Steve Frisch | 13 November 2011 at 03:19 PM) all of our accounting is independently reviewed by auditors who are legally required to report any problems to the IRS. We are the amongst most transparent corporations in existence.

I am proud of the fact that we have been growing for the last three years. I'm also proud of having managed a $5 million program to help farmers and ranchers access conservation easements in the Sierra Valley, which explains why our net assets dropped from 2003-2009--it was because we were sitting on private money we used to pay ranchers for easements; decisions they made as part of their private property rights.

You don;t know what the hell you are talking about.

By the way George, I assume you read your own blog? So you read the post over on the other thread, that has very specific financial information. Am I right?

The perils of radical transparency are idiots like Todd. Too bad his financial statements are not transparent. I suspect we would discover what an experienced business man he really is!

George Rebane

SteveF - The remarkable contribution of $5M from private individuals to purchase conservation easements should explain away the decline of SBC assets. I have no desire to have RR be the venue for any investigations of how non-profits operate with private funds. Any interest I may have had involved only the use of public monies.

Todd Juvinall

George, the bulk of SVC's money, I'd say 80-90 percent is taxpayers money. What is missing is the Schedule B of who gave the money to them and it looks to me as if most was spent on payroll. ` What the attack from Frish means to me is he is trying to throw off a real investigatory review of his money most of which is tax money. He stoops to his usal name-calling becasue he is hiding something. His statements , the 990's, are the compilation of data he puts together and any account will have a disclaimer statement that they did not review the sources of the information. Therefore, we all now the veracity of the information is suspect. I think I will ask for a review of the 990's by the AG.

Mike Thornton

Todd, for someone who lives in a glass house, you talk and awful lot of $#!+!
Really, how much money have you stuck the taxpayers with having to pay on YOUR bad debts!

Todd Juvinall

Not a dime MikeT. You don't know anyting but you sure try.

The comments to this entry are closed.