This is—I shit you not—next week's agenda for Republicans on the House Rules Committee:
Meh. Nothing more important to do, I guess.
But I'm truly disappointed at the lack of cool acronyms. Only freshman congressman Nick Langworthy could be bothered, making HR 7700 into the SUDS Act. Nice one, congressman!
Oh I don't know. The HOOHA Act has a certain catchy quality.
It's an Al Pacino reference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kQBz9azy8
You win the internets!!!!!
Sets the tone.
Sounds bad but I'm not so sure. Might be performative more than anything. For example, in the Refrigerator Freedom Act there is:
... the Secretary of Energy may not— (1) prescribe a new or an amended energy conservation standard for a covered product that is a refrigerator, a refrigerator-freezer, or a freezer under such section unless the Secretary of Energy determines that the prescription and imposition of such energy conservation standard is technologically feasible and economically justified;
=-=-=-=-=
I scanned all those bills and they are virtually identical. ABC Act, the Energy Secretary may not LMN unless the Secretary determines XYZ. And the XYZs are reasonable in my view.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr7637rh/pdf/BILLS-118hr7637rh.pdf
You seem to misunderstand what XYZ means, since it means they can sue repeatedly to block regulations as there's no definition to 'economically justified' and 'technically feasible' means what to standards for products that have yet to be designed?
Is this (or any) administration in the habit of prescribing standards that aren’t technologically feasible or economically justified? Seems like many federal agencies largely exist in their current ginormous form to issue thousand page documents justifying whatever it is they want to do… whether you believe them or not is a different issue, but it’s hardly the case that nationally elected Democrats* pass regulations that simply cannot be technologically possible or economically beneficial to someone somewhere.
Which means all of this legislative action is performative not substantive.
*Republicans on the other hand pass regulations like “life begins at conception so all fertilized cells must not be destroyed” or “no more climate change data can be issued by agencies” and then are shocked to learn that doing so affects popular things like IVF or doesn’t stop oceans from swallowing homes. I guess Every Accusation Is A Confession still applies here…
Whether or not the administration prescribes standards that aren't technologically feasible or economically justified depends on who you listen to. I'm old enough to remember when emission controls for cars were first put in place in 1967. In the ensuing 57 years, every improvement in emission control or fuel economy standards has led the car companies to complain that meeting the new standards is impossible, or alternatively that it will be ridiculously expensive. They've clearly been wrong about "impossible"; the standards have been met. "Economically justified" could be argued; emission controls and fuel economy standards have pushed the price of cars up. My view is that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs; others might argue.
It is stunning how much time this shitshow Republican-led Congress has wasted on performative bullshit.
They'd rather fuck around than pass a bill to fund Ukraine's war against Russia?
I hope they get wiped out in the 2024 elections.
This indeed! But it's what their idiot constituents want. Very few of them have coherent concepts of governance -- many of them can't even govern themselves -- and all this childish tantrum-throwing by their elected representatives just validates their constant sense of grievance and outrage.
Republicans: the party of sociopaths and toddlers.
Aren't most toddlers sociopaths? At least the youngest ones?
No. Not if they have good non-sociopathic parents. They grow out of that shitty behavior pretty quick with parents who will not tolerate it at all. I’ve met perfectly pleasant, respectful and empathetic toddlers before.
Again, their number one goal is owning the libs, and that's what their voters mainly care about.
Fully agreed. Especially. re: Ukraine.
But I suspect (and correct me if I am wrong) that Dems also bring up legislation that they know will not pass for reasons of political theater/drawing contrasts with their opposition.
Of course they do, especially when they're in the minority. That's politics.
The distinction here is that this sort of performative nonsense is ALL the Republican House majority does. IIRC they have passed something like seven percent of the average number of bills passed by a House at this point in a session.
Dems play politics, but they also govern. Republicans are very evidently incapable of governance.
What bbleh said. When Republicans actually do have trifectas, they still don’t pass anything but tax cuts, and unworkable schemes to “get rid of woke” or witches or whatever is the latest boogeyman in the closet, which are mainly unworkable because none of the shit they profess to hate actually exists IRL (or exists but is an immutable part of real life, eg getting rid of all the homosexuality that exists in thousands of species including ours).
It’s all just performative bullshit all the time with them. They simply cannot govern, and I don’t mean that as it “they govern in ways I disapprove of,” I mean it as in “everything falls apart whenever they’re left in charge too long.” Recessions, pandemics, wars with no end in sight, everything falls apart until voters elect Dems to clean it all back up again. Republicans simply are the party of middle schoolers who never grew up intellectually or emotionally.
Democrats In Disagreement Over Whether
Republicans Are Toddlers Or Middle-Schoolers
Why The Biden Team Should Be Worried
A Times Panel Discussion
I logged in for the first time in months just to thank you for the laugh.
Fair point, although also at least some of the traditional Republicans (like Mitch McConnell) have authentic philosophical differences on the role of government. They generally oppose government-led solutions and so passing legislation is not something they really want to do too much. They prefer deregulation...
and fair enough. But these fools came within a hair of defaulting on the national debt, and they're getting close to defenestrating their second Speaker, even as several of their colleagues have quit in disgust with them.
McConnell, for all I disapprove of the way he abused both the filibuster and the SC nomination process, at least is not an outright vandal. These people are vandals.
What odds these won't give us access to higher efficiency appliances from overseas?
Or stop HVAC companies from grossly overcharging for heat pumps?
Meanwhile Ukraine continues to lose the war because of these fucksticks.
I'm sure the timing of it is no co-incidence, being Tax Day and all.
Give me liberty in laundry or give me death!
Probably intended to make it legal to clean your gun at the laundromat.
Waiting for the "Rollover Minutes Recovery Act" and the "Jumbo Shrimp Truth and Reconciliation Act."
Then we'll know they're serious.
Didn't they want to get rid of the energy star program too?
And seatbelts. They hated those. Always yelling at clouds, the conservatives are.
All this, while the Russians are lobbing 2,000 pound glide bombs at Ukraine, and they don't have enough ordinance to attempt to intercept most of them.
The GOP are a bunch of Russian stooges. Reagan and Goldwater are turning over in their graves.
SUDS act is a dumb acronym for dishwashers though as they use non-sudsing detergents.
I support our plumbers! I should be able to use sudsing detergents if I want too! I want me FREEDOM!!!
Recognizing the implied /s, I would point out that you can use sudsing detergents in your dishwasher if you want your kitchen full of suds.
Who knew the US appliance industry has the GOP by the throats in this way?
They don't - the appliance industry doesn't care about this stuff. It's the fossil fuel lobby and "virtue" signaling to voters that think it is their inalienable right to waste as much energy as possible that drives all the anti-efficiency legislation. I doubt the sponsors of the legislation actually care about it.
Yes. Everything is international now, and if any US company wants to sell appliances in the EU or elsewhere they obviously have to make versions that comply to their energy and water use standards. Metric too.
This stuff is not only performative but stupid. But they know their audience who once again are focused mainly on owning the libs even if it's cutting off their nose or addressing something non-existent like banning abortions after birth. They will get off on days of coverage of this garbage on Fox News and the rest.
Yeah nobody wants to just manufacture for the US market. It’s already a pain in manufacturers’ asses that we refuse to adopt metric. Adding more requirements to stuff that nobody else with any purchasing power in the world wants added, simply means the US market will end up with inferior products specially made just for us that cost more to boot, since basic economics suggests making stuff for niche markets raises per unit costs of production.
America is big and wealthy enough to insist on having its own standards, of course. It’s not like manufacturers can ignore 330m consumers completely. But just like the UK is discovering under Brexit, it’s not cost free to insist on everything being on different standards from the rest of the world. Ask them how much they enjoy their “Not For Sale In The EU” labeled produce, on an island that doesn’t enjoy great farming weather and so must import most of their produce. You think the EU is sticking those labels on the best fruit and veg?