Jennifer Granholm to Boost Sammy Hagar iTunes Sales
by Alvin MacIntoshJuly 3rd, 2008, 11:10 am
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm recommends lower speed limits on Michigan’s highways in order to “reduce costs in an era of high fuel prices”, according to the Detroit Free Press.
Does this sound familiar?
In 1974, Congress passed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which included the National Maximum Speed Law – the catalyst for Van Halen’s second front-man’s solo hit, “I Can’t Drive 55″. The cap was intended as a response to the 1973 oil crisis.
At the risk of beginning a tangent, despite record nominal – and real – prices, we are nowhere near the severity of 1973. Have you seen a gas line around the block yet? Have you seen widespread gasoline siphoning and theft? Aside from the odd illicit barter, things are more irritating than life-threatening at this point.
In addition to being an egregious usurpation of a power that had for nearly 200 years belonged to the states, the 1974 law proved notoriously difficult to enforce. A number of states witnessed non-compliance rates as high as 83% nearly 10 years after the law was enacted. Several states fined drivers for wasting energy in addition to violating the speed limit. According to some sources, current national speed limits are on average lower today than in the aftermath of the 1974 National Maximum Speed Law.
In 1987 and 1988, Congress raised the national limit to 65 mph, and in 1995 lifted all federal limits, thereby restoring the power to set speed limits to the states (where it belongs). Hardly anyone obeyed the law, so Congress first tried relaxing it, and when that didn’t work, repealed it outright.
To be clear, I am not attacking the right of a state to determine the speed limit on its own highways. Rather, I am attacking the rationale behind Gov. Granholm’s proposition.
Speed limits on roads should be set according to the maximum speed at which a passenger motor vehicle can operate safely in ideal driving conditions – i.e. dry, straight, even pavement. Consumption – including that of gasoline – is a basic right, almost enshrined in the Constitution. If I want to drive fast enough to get across the state in a decent time, so long as I am not a clear and present danger to other people, I have the right to drive a vehicle of whatever fuel economy fits my fancy. My commute is long enough. I don’t need the government telling me I have to take longer to get to the traffic jam at the end of the rainbow.
Going backwards is never the way to solve a problem. The idea here is progress. Progress does not mean, and has never meant, slowing down. It means faster, cheaper, better.
One thing Gov. Granholm does get half-right: her call for massive national investment in the quest for sustainable cleaner energy the supply of which can continue to expand as our economy and that of the rest of the world grow. Too bad she isn’t advocating putting her own state’s money where her big mouth is. Although the University of Michigan (all campuses combined) holds the number 4 spot in academic expenditure on R&D in science and engineering, Michigan as a state ranks 11th with $1.47 billion in expenditures in 2006, but in per capita terms, Michigan ranks only 27th, despite being the 8th largest state by population and the 20th largest state economy.
Posted in Gas Prices, Oil, Politics, Speed Limit |
Personally, I prefer “Love Walks In”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rvri_da8_E
Personally, I hate Sammy Hagar.
I prefer “Bitchin’ Camaro” by the Dead Milkmen
“Consumption – including that of gasoline – is a basic right, almost enshrined in the Constitution.”
Could you elaborate on that -
Food, water, clothing, shelter - sure, that falls under pursuit of happiness.
Bellying up to the world’s limited resources like an all-u-can eat buffet and gorging yourself because you got there early, and leaving nothing for the people at the other end of the line - where is selfish egotism in the constitution, exactly?
You criticize the Fed Gov’t for overriding the state’s rights to set their own speed limits, then you criticize a state governor for looking to do just that.
Let’s be honest here, you simply don’t like to drive slow, and you don’t like anyone telling you what to do.
I’ve got news for you, NOBODY likes being told what to do. What makes you so special?
Chris M,
Who are you to tell others what falls under “pursuit of happiness”?
If I want to eat 15 dinners per night, throw away 15 more for no good reason, waste gasoline by revving my engine in the parking lot for an entire week, watch disgusting porno videos, smoke 100 cigarettes in 10 minutes, or just sit around marveling at my selfishness and egotism … how is any of this your business?
As long as I don’t break any laws or harm other people, I am free to do as I please.
I should add that the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Chris M –
Nevermind that you appear to confuse the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence. I’ll go with it.
Food, water, clothing, and shelter would fall more under “life”. Consumption falls under liberty. Going back to the Constitution, the Preamble also addresses “securing the Blessings of Liberty”.
Further, if you had read my post in its entirety, you would have noted that I was not arguing against a state’s right to set the speed limits on its highways. Rather, I was criticizing the rationale behind Granholm’s suggested change. 1974 is a case in my point: these speed limits are exceedingly difficult to enforce without penalties far disproportionate to the offense. Speed limits should be set according to the maximum speed at which a passenger motor vehicle can operate safely in ideal driving conditions – i.e. dry, straight, even pavement.
Going 65 mph in a Honda Civic is not an all-I-can-eat gorge-fest on the world’s resources. We do not live in Soviet Russia. The state does not give me gasoline. I pay for it myself out of what’s left of my paycheck after all the taxes I pay. As such, I decide how much money to spend on gasoline and how often. This is the liberty that the Framers of the Constitution intended — that I decide how to dispose of my own property, provided that my actions do not pose or create a clear and present danger to others without their consent.
I enjoy the simultaneous beat down.
Was that coordinated?
In fact, Outraged, it was not. We at Commuter Outrage merely take pride in our familiarity with the basic tenets of our country, and share the same apparently lunatic belief that we should be allowed to spend what little money the government doesn’t take from us as taxes however we please.
Actually, do “food, water, clothing, and shelter” fall under “life”?
My instinct is that they fall under either “liberty” or “pursuit of happiness.”
If food, water, clothing, and shelter were considered “rights,” then the government would have to provide them to those who couldn’t provide it for themselves.
Then again, we do have food stamps, public drinking fountains, tax deductions for Goodwill, and homeless shelters.
What do you think?
The US was not constituted as a welfare state. I read the Declaration of Independence to say that, because these rights are inalienable, the Government cannot interfere with the ability of citizens to exercise them. Contrast this with the view of the intellectual heirs of Stalin and Brezhnev, who would contend that “inalienable” means that the Government must provide these things to the citizens.
“I’ve got news for you, NOBODY likes being told what to do.”
really? really Chris M? i get the feeling walking through life that A LOT - hell, the MAJORITY - of people like being told what to do, how to live their lives, what to buy, what to wear, what to think, what to like.
most people like being told what to do because they have trouble thinking for themselves, are afraid of what people may think if they choose their own way, or don’t like to argue with others or appear disagreeable.
Chris M, the facts on the ground don’t support your statement. i wish i could agree with you that the world is full of individual, rational, intelligent thinkers living in the pursuit of their own happiness and the greater good of society. but that just isn’t the case.
If I want to eat 15 dinners per night, throw away 15 more for no good reason, waste gasoline by revving my engine in the parking lot for an entire week, watch disgusting porno videos, smoke 100 cigarettes in 10 minutes, or just sit around marveling at my selfishness and egotism … how is any of this your business?
As long as I don’t break any laws or harm other people, I am free to do as I please.
—————————————————————
You see, this is what eludes you, Judd.
We live on a finite planet with finite resources. So your willful squandering, and disregard for the environment DOES harm other people.
Most of all, future generations.
When did being a selfish, frittering pig become the “American Ideal” anyway?
Paul C,
Let me say this: I don’t actually do any of that stuff. I’m not a man-hog in real life. But it’s within my rights as an American citizen to be one, if I choose.
Just as it’s within Al Gore’s rights to consume enough electricity to power 232 U.S. homes for a month.
Are you proposing that we limit consumption in certain areas through rationing or taxation? If so, which areas? Food? Water? Energy?
All of this moves us ever closer to a centrally planned society where growth, innovation, free markets, and individual rights are stifled.
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2007/07/freedom-of-medicine-and-diet.html