Rigging the market

California appears poised to beef up its efforts to micromanage the auto industry.

The Associated Press reports that legislative Democrats are cobbling together regulations demanding that 15 percent of all new vehicles sold in the state be emissionfree within 10 years. Car companies that don’t meet the requirements would be hit with fines or forced to write checks to competitors that comply.

“If we create more competition in the market,” said Assemblywoman Autumn Burke, a Los Angeles Democrat, “that automatically will trigger a more affordable vehicle.”

It’s unclear where Ms. Burke earned her economics and automotive engineering degrees. But the notion that government “creates” competition in the private sector by empowering bureaucrats and swelling the regulatory apparatus is utter nonsense.

It would be refreshing if one or two automakers simply pulled out of California in protest. That won’t happen, of course. But at the very least, auto executives shouldn’t be shy about exposing this push for what it really is: A massive sop to Tesla Motors.

Elon Musk’s electric car company — which has yet to turn a profit in more than a decade of operation — already benefits from California’s marketplace meddling. Tesla for years has made millions in cash by selling emissions credits to rival automakers. The new proposal would impose stricter standards and almost certainly further enrich the company.

“Tesla shouldn’t be able to rig the market for their own purposes,” said Wade Newton, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

He’s correct. But such concerns don’t hold much sway with the Golden State lawmakers seeking to impose their preferences on drivers.

John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, was elected president in 1960. He lost no time eliminating or modulating onerous regulations and cutting taxes across the board. He said with timeless wisdom, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Prosperity ensued.

About two decades later, Ronald Reagan, a Republican, did the same thing — only more so. Prosperity ensued.

In both cases, the federal government got more revenue even though taxes were lower.

Albert Einstein suggested that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. A correlative definition might be not doing what has proven to work. Let’s call it progressive insanity.

Which candidate will cut taxes and deregulate? Which candidate will do the opposite? Donald Trump has my vote.

Nobody is trying to take away the rights of Americans under the Second Amendment. Not the Democrats, not President Obama, not Hillary Clinton.

The problem has been and continues to be commonsense reform. Such as if you are on the no-fly list, you cannot purchase a gun. Nationwide registration. And no American should be able to purchase an AK47, AR-15 or an Uzi. Every mass shooting — from Columbine, Sandy Hook, Orlando, etc. — has been carried out with guns that shoot more than 40 rounds a minute.

Donald Trump, as usual, last week opened mouth and inserted foot. He tells Vladimir Putin it’s OK to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails. And now he is telling Second Amendment people to shoot. I don’t know if it is suppose to be after they “lock her up” or before.

I just wish the press would allow both sides of every story, especially when it comes to Mr. Trump.

So David Redding is upset with commercials interrupting his viewing of the Olympics (letter, Wednesday ReviewJournal). I wonder if he realizes just how much it costs to provide him with this “free” entertainment.

Just like everything else in the world, nothing is free. Commercials are a way to provide this service to us all. I’d hate to have to pay for everything I want to watch on television.

When I read about how much money is spent in the Clark County School District to help children learn to speak English, I wonder how much money other countries allocate to help children who have

Much is written about citizens who are disenfranchised by the requirement to show ID when voting. Who are these people? How about a concrete example of such a person and not just a generalization such as “the poor or seniors”?

As noted many times by many Review-Journal letter writers, there is virtually nothing of consequence that can be accomplished without proper ID.

Wednesday’s “Water use down” editorial painted an encouraging picture given the recent decline in Colorado River water consumption. That this has occurred during a period of population growth sounds laudable.

But the problem is far from solved. Because the vast majority of the water goes to agriculture, the only solution will require cutting irrigation until it balances with what the river can supply. Growing low-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and cotton in the desert makes no sense when water is short.