Okay, we all know that the Tea Party unregulated utopia will never happen. But I think it is funny how the ultra-conservative crowd, once elected, suddenly finds their kind of regulations okay. In this case, that means either banning a product or mandating the sale of an alternative product.

I don’t really begrudge Beth O’Connor (R-Paint Maine Red) for her proposals in principle, because I think government should have the power to do what she proposes; rather, I think the argument should be whether or not a particular regulation is a good idea. But you’d think the Tea Party crowd would want to impeach her over this quote below. Or in lieu of impeachment at least write some nasty comments on her profile page.

I have a bill that has yet to come out of the revisors office. This bill is in regards to Ethanol. As of the moment I want to go in and revise it before it comes out to abolish the use of all ethanol in Maine. The idea that I have floated was to have ethanol free gasoline avaiable in all areas of Maine.

What really is concerning me now is the increase in ethanol in our gasoline emits a carcinogen called Acetaldehyde. When the amount of ethanol in our gas was 3 to 5% this emmission was within acceptable levels of public law 101-549 otherwise know as The Clean Air Act of 1990.

I don’t think it is clear from her quote whether she wants to change the bill from abolishing ethanol to merely requiring ethanol free gasoline or vice versa, but either way this should stink if you’re a modern tea party conservative. Let’s break down what she is saying:

Option 1: Abolish the use of ethanol.

Beth O’Connor’s bill may simply ban ethanol gasoline in Maine. I understand that ethanol is required by the EPA, so it is already ‘forced’ upon gas stations (thus I think a law banning it would probably not pass muster with the Feds), but shouldn’t abolishing ethanol be considering just as much government tinkering in the marketplace? If you’re against government regulation, period, you should be against banning the sale of products, period, even if said product isn’t popular with constituents who want to will that 30 year old non-ethanol-compliant lawnmower to their grandchildren.

Who is Beth O’Connor, some sort of ivory-tower elitist who thinks it is her place to tell people they can’t sell ethanol gasoline? Did she get the idea for this bill while drinking lattes and with her fellow Harvard alumni? She went to Harvard, right?

Option 2: Require gas stations carry ethanol free gasoline.

The other option for the Beth O’Connor “I know what’s best for you” regulatory bill of 2011 may be a little less government interference, but only just. Under this proposal the absolute abolishment of a product would be dropped in favor of simply mandating the over-regulated Maine businessman be forced to sell an alternative type of fuel, the kind without ethanol, which is favored by Ms. O’Connor.

Hmmm. A government mandate to sell a certain kind of fuel. A mandate? Where have I heard that word used before?

Wait a minute… does Beth O’Connor have a birth certificate? Doesn’t she know that Republicans supporting mandates is so 1994?

Beth O’Connor favors the job-killing Clean Air Act of 1990

What is also funny is that the underlying reasoning used by Ms. O’Connor in both the alternatives above is very liberal. Well, not really liberal- just anti-tea party, which seems like liberal nowadays.

First, she seems to want to keep air pollution within the bounds of the 1990 Clean Air Act, which conservatives at the time told us would ruin our economy. Why does Ms. O’Connor want to continue ruining our economy? She must have missed the Tea Party memo that the Clean Air Act is an unconstitutional bit of lawmaking that destroys our way of life and prevents us from getting a small reduction in our electrical bills in exchange for reducing deaths, medical bills, asthma, grimy particulates floating around in the air, ozone, and general smelliness. That sort of thing definitely isn’t allowed in the tea party world of government.

Second, (and to use a very popular term on As Maine Goes) she seems very “nanny state” over acetaldehyde, a product of ethanol. She comments that acetaldehyde is a byproduct of ethanol and a carcinogen, which apparently justifies taking it’s use away from the free hand of the market. Again, she missed the tea party memo: if the government can ban something for our health, can’t it ban anything? Think about it!

Now, I’m all for keeping carcinogens out of the air but I must note that acetaldehyde is also a a product of ethanol when we humans drink ethanol. Which a lot of us Mainers do quite a lot. I look forward to Ms. O’Connor’s next bill: An Act To Reduce Cancer-Causing Acetaldehyde Poisoning By Requiring The Removal Of Ethanol From Allen’s Coffee Brandy.