Remind Me to Never Get Stuck on a Tarmac

Federalism just took another punch in the teeth from the courts.

The Second Circuit struck down New York's new Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, citing concerns about states regulating in areas that should be under federal control. Deregulation is a complicated area of law -- I sure as hell don't understand it -- but I'm seeing some parallels between this decision and the EPA's recent smackdown on California's stricter emissions standards. In both cases, the decisionmaker said that federal laws preempted tougher state regulations.

Well, pooey to that.

Particularly when dealing with health and safety concerns -- and I'd put both auto emissions and airplane toilet accessibility in that category -- the federal government should be providing the floor, not the ceiling. California's citizens breathe some of the worst air in the country. New York airline passengers suffered interminable waits on tarmacs with no water and overflowing toilets. Their local governments should be able to pass laws that make their lives better. And if Michigan and Texas don't feel the need to do the same, well, that's their prerogative.

The counter, of course, is that national companies -- like airlines and automakers -- will have to suffer the expense of creating different cars for California and different accomodations for Kennedy Airport. But the companies actually have a choice. They can either create two sets of products, or use the higher standards as the de facto regulation for the entire country. So this "incosistent regulation" argument really doesn't make sense. The companies can choose to eliminate the patchwork altogether.

I've got no problem with placing that small burden on the shoulders of large corporations. The federal government clearly thinks differently.