One particularly powerful characteristic of government in America is our constitutional federalism. Fundamental to that characteristic and its American uniqueness is our conception of the flow of sovereignty: from the individual to local to state to federal. There some complexity (and disagreement if you know your Federalist Papers) but we all tend to agree in the US that sovereignty lies with the people and they distribute it out somehow to the various governments. While political theorists do make much of this, it's never talked about sufficiently in the public square, given it's one of the reasons why the American democracy is fundamentally different from any other. What remains fascinating though is the constant, but unacknowledged, shell game politicians play over who the people gave sovereignty to when, for what purposes, and to what extent.
Today, the Obama administration announced that they were going to look closely at whether states could set higher fuel efficiency standards than the federal government. This issue has been a source of great contention between the states and the feds for many years, with the Bush administration having blocked states like California from imposing higher standards. The auto industry has long argued that letting states set their own standards makes building cars a real pain in the rear, since they'd have to comply with 50 different standards. I suppose there are also connected trade and commerce constitutional questions that might emerge, but TAP will set those aside. The Obama administration of course has every intention of rolling back the prohibition on states setting higher standards and "looking closely" is code for "will do it, but need to look like we thought about it first" because they want fuel standards increased even in Congress won't do it. The result of this rollback would likely be that other states would begin the cascade of imposing higher standards.
TAP really doesn't find the argument compelling on either side of the fuel standard issue itself, but is of course suspicious of everyone's arguments. Certainly given the auto industry woes, the collective costs of higher fuel economy and managing 50 different production standards would just be piling on and mean that Japan will whip up on GM even more than usual. Also there is significant evidence to suggest that raising fuel standards encourages marginally improving an antiquated petroleum-dependent car, instead of encouraging replacement with superior technology. In fact, raising the fuel efficiency (since its effects are roughly the same as lowering the cost of gas from the consumer-side, ceteris paribus) may encourage more driving and less use of alternative or public transportation since it raises fixed costs of production and lowers marginal costs of operation, thus negating the whole environmental point of the fuel standards. And last of all, if part of the point is to not be "held hostage to dwindling resources" as Obama has stated, then letting states set higher fuel efficiency standards is kind of like hating that you're addicted to cocaine and deciding to just snort half as much - the pusher will charge more and still make money and you're still a coke head. Raising fuel standards does nothing to reduce dependence on oil, just makes our domestic supply able to fill more of our needs in the short-term. Of course that ability to meet more of our needs domestically, coupled with the environment positives that could theoretically result, may be worth all the expense.
What TAP is more interested in is that this is the latest iteration of the ever-evolving game where politicians play fast and loose with federalism in order to undermine its whole intent. The beauty is also that politicians of all persuasions (both parties, all levels) are in on the game. Federal politicians want the federal government to trump all, unless they can't win the votes in Congress. Then, those same federal politicians find a new zeal for the sovereignty of the states. And state politicians reserve every right under the sun to the states, unless they can't win the votes in their legislature. Then, those same state politicians find a new zeal for the constitutional powers of the federal government. Obama is playing a version of this game with fuel standards exactly the way Bush played the game with fuel standards, reinterpreting the relative power and scope of authority of each governmental level because he has desired outcome, and votes somewhere stand in their way.
If one assumes the ends justify the means, then perhaps this talk about abusing the gray areas of federalism can be set aside. If you think fuel standards are the panacea that will set us all free from the clutches of foreign and dirty oil, then perhaps abuse of federalism takes a backseat. If you think underlying conceptions of government trump pretty much every policy position, then this issue matters.
