The California Tax

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In 1861, eleven Southern states decided they no longer consented to be governed by Northern politicians – who had acquired de facto political control over the federal government – and thereby, over the entire country – by dint of the North’s greater numbers.

In an election, numbers matter.

But what happens when you’re not even allowed to vote for those who rule you?

California regulators have acquired de facto control over the cars you’re allowed to buy – even if you don’t live in California – by decreeing their own California-specific mileage and emissions standards. These end up having the force of national standards because the car industry – which wants to sell cars in California – can’t afford to build cars for just California and then another set of cars for the rest of the country.

So they build all their cars to meet California’s standards – which are even more corseting then federal (national) standards.

The cost of complying with them amounts to a “California Tax” levied on everyone – including those who don’t live in California.

It is literally taxation without representation – as well as legitimate justification. 

And the state just raised taxes – again.

By issuing a fatwa that all new cars sold in California must average at least 50 miles-per-gallon by 2026. Several major car companies – including Ford, Honda, VW and BMW have already bent knee. 

The California fatwa was issued in response to President Trump’s effort to keep the current national fuel economy fatwa – the Corporate Average Fuel Economy – at the current 30-something miles-per-gallon. 

Trump’s predecessor had decreed a near-doubling of the CAFE fatwa.

It is still on deck, but Trump did recently rescind a near-tripling of the “gas guzzler” fines that would have punished any car company that didn’t “comply” with the federal 50 MPG fatwa – effectively watering down the mechanism for enforcing compliance with the fatwa.  

This did not sit well with California’s regulatory ayatollahs – which just decided to up the mandatory MPG minimums for all of us.

No matter what it costs us. Maybe not in terms of the federal fines – thanks to Orange Man – but in terms of choice.

There will be fewer vehicles available nationally that don’t meet California’s MPG fatwa because it be harder for the car companies to internally justify building them when they’re not able to sell them (without repercussions) in one of the country’s biggest markets.

But the rest of the country isn’t California – and can’t vote in California. Why should the rest of the country be subject to what California decrees?

Especially given that the original justification for the federal CAFE regs – energy scarcity, the wells running dry and most of them controlled by foreign governments – has become a non-justification.

New wells have been found; oil has proved to be abundant – and much of that abundance has turned out to be right here, in the United States.

As Trump has pointed out, there is no longer an energy-scarcity justification to punish Americans for driving other than subcompact hybrids – which are the only vehicles (other than outlawed diesel-powered cars) capable of averaging 50 miles-per-gallon.

The new justification – hugely popular in California – is that a car which averages 50 MPG “emits” less carbon dioxide, the bete noire of “climate change” – than a car which averages around 35 MPG because it burns less fuel per mile.

But this is a disingenuous alteration of the original legislative intent of the federal CAFE regs. The acronym itself says nothing about “emissions” – of carbon dioxide or any other thing.

Mileage and emissions regs used to be separate regs.

And both were federal regs.

Until California decided it wanted even stricter regs – which it began imposing on Californians several decades ago via something called CARB  – the California Air Resources Board. This resulted – at first – in what were called “California” cars, those built to comply with the state’s more onerous regs – and cars for the rest of us, which only had to comply with the less onerous federal regs.

“California” cars cost more and sometimes weren’t available with manual transmissions – or only came with smaller engines. Etc. 

But the car industry had to bear the expense – and hassle – of making (and marketing) cars tailored for what amounted to two different markets in the same country. It got worse as other states – not all, but several – adopted the “California” standards.

The car companies began building all their cars to meet California’s standards – because it was easier for them, even if it cost people who didn’t live in California (and the other states which adopted California emissions regs) more.     

California has thus acquired de facto regulatory control over the entire country – and, effectively the power to tax American drivers in every state to pay for what the state of California decrees.

This taxation without representation is about to increase, despite the efforts of the Orange Man.

California’s fatwa that all cars sold in the state average 50 miles-per-gallon by 2026 will effectively mean that cars sold in every state must also average 50 miles-per-gallon, because the car companies will have to build them that way if they want to sell cars in California – which they do – and because they can’t afford to build them just for California (and the other states that have adopted California’s standards) and then another batch for everywhere else.

So we will all get California cars – and California costs.

Without having asked for them. Without having been given the chance to say yes – or no – to them.

So much for the consent of the governed.

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!). Wait for a big one this week at the same place.

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  




Share Button


  1. It appears that CA’s requiring car companies to sell different vehicles in different states is an impediment to interstate commerce. Can’t CA be fought using the old “it violates interstate commerce” excuse used so many times by the Feds?

  2. It’d be nice if the car companies had the balls to just tell Cali “Okay, we won’t sell cars in your state.” and let the bordering states get all the taxes from those dealerships. Of course, that will never happen as it would require all the companies to come together on it and be called heretics for it.

    • Hi Anonymous,

      The big car companies have become de facto subsidiaries of the government. They have decided it is better for them to sell more costly CA complaint cars to everyone. More money for them, you see.

    • It wouldn’t work that way. California is pretty nasty about the importation of vehicles from other states. Simple put if the automakers had the nerve to simply abandon the California market then people living there would not be able to purchase new cars. Everyone wanting a new car would have to set up a Montana LLC or establish residency in another state. Of course the response by government in CA won’t be to roll back their idiotic demands but to crack down on out of state tagged vehicles. Wealthy people and legislators would have some workaround that is too expensive for ordinary people to exploit.

      If I were running an automaker I would start by not selling various models in the state. This would anger dealers and customers there but it is what it is. Be honest with both that the regulations cannot be complied with in a cost effective manner. Government likes to make things cost more then let the manufacturers take the blame.

    • Hi Rethinker,

      Indeed. Provided older cars aren’t de facto outlawed by new fatwas which require them to meet current “safety” or emissions standards in order to be allowed on “public” roads. I suspect this is coming….

      • It has been attempted before in the late 80s and early 90s. What they ended up with were the scrapping programs that were copied for cash-for-clunkers. Remember the 80s and 90s were a time when old cars were much more dependent on salvage yards for parts and CA made it illegal to sell the vital go-stop-turn parts from cars sold to the scrapping programs. They essentially attempted to starve the supply of parts to keep cars going.

  3. Do like gun manufacturers do concerning magazine capacity laws in California. Don’t sell or make different products for them.

  4. “These end up having the force of national standards because the car industry – which wants to sell cars in California – can’t afford to build cars for just California and then another set of cars for the rest of the country.”

    I do not accept that premise. Many automakers offer different engine options for the same model without going broke because of it. They are doing it right now.

    Offering a 49 state legal V-6, or high performance engine that is banned in Kali seems easily feasible. Just a different option that will fit in the same car.

    • Yes, make the EV shitboxes and sell them in Mexifornia and to virtue-signaling clovers in other states. The real cars can then be sold in the other 49 states.

  5. When I was a kid, I used to collect sales brochures from all the major car manufacturers. At that time Florida buyers could save $20 by foregoing a heater. With global warming, we won’t need one much longer.

    • What “global warming”?
      That’s a load of garbage.
      Global temperatures rise and fall cyclically and they’ve been doing it well before humans came around or started burning hydrocarbons.
      CO2 is NOT a “pollutant” and is actually an essential trace gas that is necessary for life on the planet to exist.
      The planet has actually be WARMER than today for 95% of it’s existence.
      Stop parroting propaganda.

      • Science text books used to point out the fact that CO2 was just as essential as water. There is no scientist anywhere that would deny that we’re closer to the lower end of the spectrum than the higher end. At 150 ppm all life on this planet would die. The lowest it has ever gotten down to is 180 ppm during the last ice age. At somewhere around 250 -300 ppm plants die. We’re only up around 400 ppm now, and they’re telling everyone that we need to watch our CO2 output. It’s preposterous.

      • Also at one point the entire planet was covered in ice. The equator was -40C then and the poles -130C, so which would you rather have, a planet covered in vegetation or a planet in ice, we have had both and both occurred millions of years ago. Now those cities with large populations and numbers of cars will have a large pollution problem, I can understand having a more fuel efficient engine, but forcing everyone to buy is foolish, but then that is what those in power want to do, control what others are allowed to buy, own and do. I found out about the iced earth from PBS on YouTube.

    • Coldest temps ever recorded in Illinois this past winter.

      If you believe in global warming then you believe Florida won’t exist much longer. Meanwhile the banks are still lending on property there.

      • I moved to Florida to get away from the libtards, in California, and to hopefully warm up, but it’s too cold here as well. It freezes here every winter. My neighbors all have fruit trees, but none of them produce anything. I’ve got an orange tree that I’ve had for four years and this is the first year it even has any oranges. The first year they produced they all dropped off when they were about the size of marbles.

      • Brent, In the 1200’s and 1300’s you’d have been tarred and feathered in Europe for saying such as global warming. It was so cold crops wouldn’t grow and people died in massive amounts due to moving around trying to find some place better. It was not a fun time for humanity or much of anything else.

        I’ll take global warming as the alternative although this year isn’t nearly as hot in west Texas as last year. Next year may be a cool spell. Climate change, that’s what the hell climate does…..changes…..and always has.

          • Morning eric. Consider who is afraid of the tar and feathers. No one I personally know. It’s the professional predator, i.e., bureaucrats and their political controllers.

  6. Car companies make their biggest profits on financing. Building a “liberal-mobile” car for the whole country is going to raise the prices. This mean much more financing. Longer term financing. People are still enthralled with buying new wheels for their own reasons. No matter the cost, as long as they can finance it over a long term, to some extent they will keep buying new cars. It’s an ego thing for many consumers…having the latest and most advanced. To this extent, the car companies will not make waves and build whatever Congress or Cally demands because they will still make money on the financing end even if they have to sell the cars at cost. The end game for the west and east coast socialists is to have everyone owning a self-driving EV so that they can put the oil companies out to pasture and keep a constant eye on you with all the advanced tracking systems. Liberals and socialists are control freaks, not practical in any sense of the word. They love to be dictators, and isn’t that what Cally has become?

  7. Couldn’t the Feds challenge the California law in court? If the rest of the country truly is having to pay for what California decrees, seems to me that there could be a challenge based on interstate commerce.

  8. In the late 70’s my cousin drove to Texas in his 68 Vette and made a deal to trade it to a dealer for an RX7. They made him a price and he wrote a check for the RX7 and then they could either forego the trade or give him what they said they would for the Vette.

    Well, he’s chuckling back through Texas knowing he’d avoided the price of a California car since they were always more expensive. I drove that RX7 and it was a dandy. Open the hood and I could have pulled that engine out barehanded. Really neat car. He paid $6700 for the RX, drove it for 6 years in Ca. and sold it for $6700. Best car deal he ever made.

    Ignorance is a blessed thing…in politics. I have heard old school Republicans praise RR as the next savior. They don’t recall he really started fucking up Ca. when he was a Dem. and guv. He insisted on having a then, ground-shaking law to prohibit guns in a myriad of ways and one was carrying a long gun. He did this simply because he was personally afraid of black men with guns. Hinckley surprised him by not being black and being a family friend(yuk yuk). Too bad his aim wasn’t true.

    Maybe we would have never had Ollie North and that would have been a boon, lying, cheating, thieving, immoral SOB.

    • A Hinckley “success” would have given us the CIA chief as President that much sooner, an infinitely worse individual than RR.

      • Agreed 100%. Bush was counting on a Hinkley success. You could see it in the icy glare he always gave out during state of the union addresses given by Reagan. As far as Eights cousin goes, I think he would have been better off keeping the 68 Vette rather than getting the RX7, no?

        I liked the RX7 though. It was a breakthrough car for the times, making Road and Tracks June1978 cover as one of the “10 Best Cars for a Changed World.” It’s too bad that the Wankel Engine couldn’t hold up over time

      • Maybe you didn’t live through this. RR had nothing to do with what happened in his tenure. He was out of it mentally and the same scum who worked for Nixon, Bush 1 and the Shrub ran his presidency. He was simply a figurehead who gave speeches. He was a good actor. He couldn’t even remember the people on his staff when he testified to congress and the evil Ollie cried his little ol heart out since he was more guilty than anyone in Panama. In fact, he was Bush’s go to guy and arranged for the vast smuggling.

        Vast amounts of drugs didn’t get to the US by “ordinary smugglers”. It was brought in by C 130’s and the CIA. They crucified a S. A. dictator who let them use his bases.

    • “Ollie North and that would have been a boon, lying, cheating, thieving, immoral SOB.”

      Not to mention being a probable murderer during his days as a Marine. You don’t get to the rank of Colonel in the Marines unless you are capable of and have been a murderer.

    • @Mr.Southman- I normally would not bother with refuting a post that I find disgusting, nor would I resort to personal characterizations of posters, but in in your case, I will make an exception-
      This post is so full of shit. And YOU, Mr. Southman are FULL OF SHIT too. In the FIRST place, Reagan switched from a dem to a republican in the 50s long before he ever ran for governor. In the SECOND place, show some, no ANY proof that Reagan was afraid of black men with guns. In the THIRD place, Reagan carried full time until after he was elected president, and they convinced him to keep it in his briefcase. He was not against the 2nd Amendment and fully supported it. In the FOURTH place, Ronald Reagan was a good man and beloved by many, including me, and your wishing that Hinkley had had better aim PISSES ME OFF. You are an idiot, Sir.

      • Hi Nathan,

        “In the SECOND place, show some, no ANY proof that Reagan was afraid of black men with guns”.

        Well, he did sign the Mulford act, which was probably inspired by fear of “black men with guns”. Now, Reagan may have not shared that fear, but he did, at the least, recognize, and capitulate to, that fear in others.

        “He was not against the 2nd Amendment and fully supported it”.

        I don’t think “fully supported it” is justifiable. There’s that pesky Mulford act he supported, and signed, and this quote from 1967:

        “There is no reason why, on the street today, a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons. Guns are a ridiculous way to solve problems than have to be solved among people of good will”.

        I included the second sentence in the quote because it indicates that he did not believe that guns are often a way of preventing problems from developing in the first place.


      • Nathan, I’m an old idiot who lived through all this shit. I had to wise up during the early 60’s just to avoid Vietnam. After that it was a never-ending lie by every politician that held the office of Prez. You have much to learn grasshoppper. Until you do, go fuck yourself.

        • Did you learn that phrase in debate class ? I thought not. You lack facts, and excel at bullshit. No discernment or CLASS. You are an inferior example of the human species, subset Homois Subhumanis

          • Ah, what a genius comeback. You, on the other hand, are just full of “facts”. You need to take your old style Republican ass to the bathroom and get rid of some of those “facts”.

            I will say you are good at name calling, without a shred of your almighty facts. Great debate indeed.

      • Nathan Hail,

        “In the SECOND place, show some, no ANY proof that Reagan was afraid of black men with guns.”

        Mulford Act.

  9. It could easily be solved with a VIN that started CA. Simple, no other car could be sold there. Sounds good to me.

    Goldwater once said he was his own worst enemy since he’d pop off and say something without thinking about how it was going to be spun. He made a statement along the lines of “he wished he had a knife and could carve off the NE coast and sent it out into the Atlantic”. He didn’t know Ca. would be just as bad soon enough or I’m sure he’d have wanted to pare down the left coast too.

  10. There’s a movement in some parts of California to break it up. Most think it should be broken up into 3 states. I think we, the people in the rest of the US should demand it be broken up into at least 7 states, to be better geographically aligned with the east coast. The only downside would be that New York would probably just step up and take over as the nutty state.

    • The government of the State of New York is essentially a one-party system, operated entirely by Democrats and people who couldn’t advance in the Democratic Party so they join a different party (and rarely get elected), which is increasingly in the grip of the “woke” culture phenomenon. The problem for them is the sheer number of people moving out of state; most of the state outside of the NYC-Albany area is hollowed out in terms of population, and now that so much business can be conducted online through tele-commuting even NYC can no longer draw people in which means declining influence on the national discourse. It’s prestige based on past achievement that holds NY’s status and that is eroding.

    • yeah, and if you take a look at each of the proposed statelets, every one of them as proposed has an über liberal huge city for a capitol, then a large sparsely populated area surrounding it. In other words instead of one California we’d have three, or five… that means, EIGHT new Senators to much things up in the Uppr Chamber, and dozens more “representatives” to not represent more than five percent geographically of each of the new “states”.

      The breakup of California is naught but an ingenious plan to take over the rest of the country politicaly, as they have done economically. Eggs, coffee, cars boats, lawnmowers, barbecues, curtains, bicycles, firearms, most building matreials, toilets and sinks, showers, generator sets, all MUST be compliant with California’s stuid standards or they cannot be sold in the state.

      The Interstate Commerce Clause demands that Congress shall :make regular” trade between the states, in other words, make certain no state imposes a tariff or tax on goods inbund to it from another state, nor prohibit ownership of something inside California that the owner could not also own in any other state… nor prohibit residents of California owning things they could own in other states.

      Someone should grow some spine and stand against them.

      • Hi T,

        This business of direct democracy (via direct popular vote, via the elimination of the Electoral College) is terrifying. It would result in just what you’ve described: The country politically controlled by the cities, where most of the population is – that population thoroughly sorted into Proletariat and Nomenklatura, both holding Sovietized views which they will then impose on the rest of the country.

        • After Lincoln’s War and the switch to direct election of senators the states lost what voice they had. I can’t find one person in 100 who understands how fundamentally that changed the political power structure. States since have been nothing more than administrative regions. Eliminating the EC is without a doubt the logical next step.

          Just wait until voting is not only mandatory, but becomes part of your social credit score.

      • We bought a new lawn mower 4 years ago(old one lost a cylinder). When I was shopping the first thing I find out, mostly due to seemingly having two different lines of each brand since they were separated. The clerk immediately told me those “over there” are California compliant. I immediately focused on the ones not in that line.

        It would be interesting to see the records of the big box stores sale of California and non-California machines in other states besides Ca.

  11. California sure seems to be reviving the spirit of secession in the Age of Trump… of course, it’ll be back to “how DARE you challenge the FedGov you NEOCONFEDERATE SLAVERY APOLOGIST???” as soon as the orange haired setback is overcome.

  12. Via Eric: “Why should the rest of the country be subject to what California decrees?”

    Response: Why should the rest of the country be subject to federal decrees? Those decrees legitimately apply to Washington D.C. and other federal territory, only.

  13. I reject this analysis completely. ERic, you are giving the car companies the benefit of the doubt when none is warranted. Maybe you don’t want to be cut off from them?

    If the car companies can make numerous models of cars and trucks now, as they do, it would be simple for them to just sell their hybrids in california and their trucks and dodge chargers etc in the rest of the country.

    The car companies are doing this for simple political reasons. Either the car execs think they’ll be retaliated with in some way by gov’t if they don’t go along, or, more likely, they are full of the people with libtarded brains full of the excrement known as global warming true belief.

    • I see this as a big part of the problem, but I also wonder if they don’t have a vested interest in selling more expensive cars as well. Don’t these manufacturers also have a stake in their own financing programs as well? GMAC is going to make a lot of money financing vehicles, more than they would by simply selling them for cash. The more the vehicle costs, the more people who have more money are going to be financing rather than just plopping the money down and being done with it.

    • The answer is that it is complicated.

      Ideally for a product or even product lines you want it the same in all markets however that may not be possible or economically feasible. The primary factors are customer acceptance, cost, and margin. It just depends.

      Even if there is a special CA version of a product the accommodation for it will show up in those units not sold there. It’s all a very tricky dance. The further away CA gets from everyone else the more difficult it gets.

      The product and cost impact of CA’s regulations will probably be felt nation wide or even world wide, but how it will manifest itself is anyone’s guess. It all simply depends. Lots of big and little decision points.

      Also involved is how other companies handle it. If the majority simply make expensive cars for CA alone then that will become the market standard. If the majority make CA compliant cars for everywhere that will be.

      Too many variables to see how it will go. My guess is that like with other things the deadline will get close and nothing practical can meet the CA requirements and CARB etc will back down. Or all the automakers can offer only battery EVs and then CA government is going to have a huge issue on their hands finding the juice to power them.

      • I hope they brown-out the entire state, esp. the capitol. Meanwhile, ERCOT and Texas will enjoy a glut of electricity and Eloi won’t be able to sell a single car in the state.

        I’m on the road a lot. I have never seen a Tesla. I did see a new mid-engine Corvette a couple weeks ago(yes, I know they supposedly weren’t for sale but that doesn’t mean a great deal)between Hamlin and US highway 180.

        The blacked out side windows told me as much as anything. They were/are not legal in Texas although I don’t agree with it. Then again, there’s not a great many laws I do agree with. Theft and injury just about cover my laws of the land.

        • For the longest time I never saw a Tesla either. Then one day I was looking right at one, and didn’t know it. The only thing that gave it away was there were no tailpipes, otherwise I would have never known what it was.

          They’re bland. The expensive ones look sorta like a bland generic version of a Maserati crossed with a Jaguar xk8 with a little bit of Porsche Panera Bread and Chevy volt mixed in.

          There all over in California, and I’m starting to see more of them in Florida as well.

      • The people at the top of the car companies, those who dictate policy, are in on the game. I suspect many of them hate the idea of us common people having cars that we control. They love the EVs for that very reason.

        There are still plenty of great engineers and designers who love cars, but they’re not making the decisions.

        Getting rid of most regulations and licensing would allow tens of thousands of inventors and engineers to produce and sell cars. The people running things have a near death grip on any kind of competition as far as cars.

        Anyway, California’s nonsense could be eliminated via the courts, but I think too many judges and politicians are in on it, too, so, not going to happen.

        I think it really is a war (low flame, but heating up) of us versus them. There rifts even in families, sadly. Sorry for the long comment.

        • Hi IC,

          I agree with you; the industry long ago “embraced” – god, I loathe that word! – regulatory capture, which they now feign as virtue signaling “concern” – another loathsome term – for the environment. And saaaaaaaafety, of course.

          There’s another aspect to this as well, which I’m trying to put together an article about. But it’s been a tough several days. I occasionally have these bouts of ennui – probably caused by the pervasive Soy Boy-ism that saturates everything beyond the end of my driveway…

  14. How about a car company just tell California to go eff themselves and decide to just build 49 state cars and not worry about selling cars in Californication. Their increase in sales in the other 49 states would more than offset the loss of sales to Mexifornia!!

    • Are you delusional or just high ? That is a fine idea, but it will never happen. The car companies do not want to disagree with any Fatwahs because they want INFLUENCE with said governments in the future when they are making driverless electric plastic fantastic electric banana rolling shitboxes for the government, whether it be the CaliMexi government, the Chinee run government in DC, or whichever one it is. You KNOW that they won’t do that- they just signed with California, and are signing with Colorado now. And what Eric says goes for European standards too. They dictated that swoopy front-ends and increased fuel mileage take a back seat to supposed pedestrian safety, front ends on cars and trucks became more vertical again- the automakers went along with it even before any U.S. government agency ordered them to.

      • Early on they used to fight against regulation tooth and nail with the attitude of “Who the hell are these bureaucrats to tell us how to design cars?”

        Unfortunately those times are long gone.

        • The airbag battle I think took the fight out the engineers and car guys. The government showed it was willing to kill people for the sake of imposing regulation. Plus the business people started using regulation as competitive edge and to sell more stuff.

  15. I would appreciate a link to what you’re talking about, Eric. From what I read, four auto manufacturers have voluntarily pledged to increase their fleet fuel economy – with no enforcement mechanism should they fail to meet those pledged targets. Sounds like a PR stunt where these 4 automakers “agree” to do something they already planned to do.

    Not that the crazy fuckers running the CA govt might decide to put enforcement mechanisms in place, or the feds once the Democrats seize power again. But, once they established that the constitution is a malleable document that can be infringed at will if they acquire the votes, everything is up for grabs every election.

    Unless a shooting war starts.

    • Darth Vader:
      You may take Captain Solo to Jabba the Hutt after I have Skywalker.

      Boba Fett:
      He’s no good to me dead.

      He will not be permanently damaged.

      Lando Calrissian:
      Lord Vader, what about Leia and the Wookiee?

      They must never again leave this city.

      [angry] That was never a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!

      Perhaps you think you are being treated unfairly?

      [pauses] No.

      Good. It would be unfortunate if I have to leave a garrison here.

      [under his breath] This deal is getting worse all the time.

  16. I don’t get why this is an issue for the whole country – can’t they say just offer the smaller engines or the hybrid versions of cars in California? Have a proper engine on offer – just don’t sell it in California!!

    • That’s what manufacturers did back in the 1970s. There were 49-state cars and California cars. The latter invariably had fewer powertrain choices, made less power, and used more gas than the 49-state versions.

  17. Even though it happened before I was born, I still haven’t forgiven LA for sitting on an air quality crisis for 30 years and then demanding federal legislation to solve it.

  18. Trump: “Mexico and I have come to an agreement, a wonderful agreement I might add, to end this illegal alien crisis.

    I told them, they pay us a barrel per illegal a day, or they take them all back AND they can have California back as well, as it is.

    Starting January 1st, California will be Mexican again”

  19. I’m okay with California taxing hits vehicles at whatever rate it wants. What I’m not okay with is it mandating people drive cars that get a certain mileage from their vehicle. California can truly drop dead at this point.

    • Moo, San Francisco hired a dozen or so people to pick up shit. They didn’t mention if they swabbed up bodily fluids but I’d hope so. I honestly couldn’t imagine doing the job without wearing a spacesuit and having a chemical wash for it at the end of the shift. Don’t know if they work at night. Please don’t ask me for documentation. If you need that a search shouldn’t be hard to do and ascertain the finer points.

  20. This sucks! WTF am I supposed to do when I replace my Focus in 10-15 years time? I wish the car companies would tell CA to fuck off! With all the poverty and homelessness they have in CA, I don’t see how folks can afford cars anyway; how can they still be a big market? Tell ’em to fuck off.

    • Lots of us agree. MM. But the car companies and the Cal gov’t are run by the banks, who tell the companies and governments what agenda they are to follow. And that agenda is not for our benefit of we the people. It ought to be that all the increased cost of CA regs be paid for by the commies who live in CA, but that is not the way it’s working.

  21. Well, maybe so. Perhaps it could be just a way for CA to collect another tax: Let’s assume the standard is the same for all the cars, but not meeting CA requirements. My guess is if they could collect a tax based on that, then they wouldn’t care about what the damn mpg’s are. (They just want the $$) However, perhaps there is some legal technicality that precludes CA from collecting its own surtax based on this. My guess is they would lose in federal court if they levied their own “gas guzzler” tax.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here