House votes to block California's ban on new gas-powered vehicles in 2035
The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to block California from implementing plans to block new sales of gas-powered vehicles in a decade.
In a 246-164 vote, members approved House Joint Resolution 88, which seeks to withdraw a waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency to California during the Biden administration to implement the ban. Thirty-five Democrats joined 211 Republicans in backing the measure.
The House also approved two other measures which withdraw waivers on the state's plans to increase sales of zero-emissions trucks in a 231-191 vote, along with the state's latest nitrogen oxide emission standards for engines in a 225-196 vote.
"The House of Representatives just passed my Resolution to stop California's insane gas car ban. It was a bipartisan vote," Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), one of the measure's co-sponsors, said on X (formerly Twitter).
Good morning. The House of Representatives just passed my Resolution to stop California's insane gas car ban. It was a bipartisan vote.
This is a major victory for common sense and a massive humiliation for Gavin Newsom. — Kevin Kiley (@KevinKileyCA) May 1, 2025
"This is a major victory for common sense and a massive humiliation for Gavin Newsom," said Kiley, who had sought to unseat the governor in the 2021 gubernatorial recall election.
"By passing these resolutions, the House made it clear that we won't let one state's radical agenda dictate what Americans can drive," said Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Oroville), who also co-sponsored the measures. "People deserve the freedom to choose the vehicles that work best for them-not to be forced into unaffordable electric vehicles that may not work for them."
In 2020, Newsom signed an executive order that would halt the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars and trucks in the Golden State by 2035. The governor's order directed the California Air Resources Board to develop and approve regulations to meet the 2035 deadline and to require all medium and heavy-duty trucks to be 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2045 "where feasible."
The executive order does not ban ownership of gasoline-powered vehicles, nor does it ban sales in the used car market.
Following Thursday's vote, Newsom's office issued a statement saying the House illegally used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the state's Clean Air Act waivers. The governor's office also said the move contradicts the Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian who have ruled the CRA does not apply to the state's waivers.
"Trump Republicans are hellbent on making California smoggy again. Clean air didn't used to be political. In fact, we can thank Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon for our decades-old authority to clean our air," Newsom said. "The only thing that's changed is that big polluters and the right-wing propaganda machine have succeeded in buying off the Republican Party – and now the House is using a tactic that the Senate's own parliamentarian has said is lawless. Our vehicles program helps clean the air for all Californians, and we'll continue defending it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Invested Every Social Security Check for 10 Years, How Rich Would You Be?
One common criticism of Social Security is that Americans would be much better off financially if the money they paid into the retirement program through payroll taxes was instead invested into private investment accounts. That same argument can be applied to Social Security checks — seniors would have much more wealth if they invested their checks as soon as they got them. Be Aware: For You: But is this a reasonable request for most people, especially those on a fixed income? To help find the answer here is a closer look at how much you could earn by investing your Social Security checks over a decade. For those seniors who can afford to invest all of their Social Security checks, the potential payoff is considerable. The following table shows how much profit you would have made if you invested every Social Security check over the past 10 years into the S&P 500, from 2015 through the beginning of 2025. The data includes the average Social Security check by year as previously reported by GOBankingRates. It also includes the average annual return of the S&P 500 from 2015 to 2025, as cited by Macrotrends (other sources might reflect different returns). Up Next: A couple things to keep in mind: The figures below are based only on yearly averages, which means they don't include month-to-month fluctuations that happen with the stock market. They also don't include other types of investments — such as crypto or real estate — that would have produced very different returns. Year Avg. monthly SS check Total SS payments for year S&P 500 return Profit/loss for year 2015 $1,341.77 $16,101.24 -0.73% -$117.54 2016 $1,360.13 $16,321.56 +9.54% +1,557.08 2017 $1,404.15 $16,849.80 +19.42% +3,272.23 2018 $1,461.31 $17,535.72 -6.24% -$1,094.23 2019 $1,455.22 $17,462.64 +28.88% +5,043.21 2020 $1,489.30 $17,871.60 +16.26% +2,905.92 2021 $1,517.98 $18,215.76 +26.89% +4,898.22 2022 $1,615.96 $19,391.52 -19.44% -3,769.71 2023 $1,696.35 $20,356.20 +24.23% +4,932.31 2024 $1,909.01 $22,908.12 +23.31% +5,339.88 2025 $1,976 $23,712 +1.96% +$464.76 Total profit/loss +$23,432.33 According to the table above, if you invested all of your monthly Social Security checks in the S&P 500 over the past decade, your nest egg would have grown by over $20,000. That kind of return should bring cheer to financial gurus, like Dave Ramsey, who recommends applying for Social Security retirement benefits as early as possible. For example, you could start collecting benefits at age 62 instead of the full retirement age of 66 or 67 and then immediately invest every monthly payment. There's just one problem with that reasoning. A large percentage of seniors don't have the financial ability to put their Social Security checks into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, real estate, crypto or other investments. They need the money to pay the bills. For about half of U.S. seniors, Social Security provides at least 50% of their overall retirement income, according to research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. For about one in four seniors, Social Security provides at least 90% of income. These folks have a hard enough time making ends meet, let alone tossing their Social Security checks into various investments that might or might not pay off. Nonetheless, for retirees who can afford to invest their benefit checks, there's a pretty good chance those investments will pay off and boost your retirement savings over the long haul. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on If You Invested Every Social Security Check for 10 Years, How Rich Would You Be? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Robert Kiyosaki Warns Hyperinflation Will ‘Wipe Out' Millions
Personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki recently made a bold prediction on X about the state of the American economy. The summary of the prediction is that hyperinflation will be financially devastating to millions of Americans. Another GOBankingRates article discusses hyperinflation, stating that the situation occurs when there's a monthly inflation rate of 50% or more. However, due to the role of the Fed, the American economy has never faced such a situation, even when inflation reached as high as 23% in 1920. Trending Now: For You: Below, we examine Kiyosaki's serious claims and determine their accuracy based on expert insights. 'Hyperinflation is a state of extremely high inflation, typically reaching high double digits or triple digits,' said Marko Bjegovic, macroeconomist and founder of Arkomina Research. Kiyosaki believes everything in the economy will become more expensive, from interest rates for borrowing money to basic necessities. Kiyosaki's reasoning is likely that, with the Fed printing money, in his opinion, this could devalue the American currency and lead to higher inflation. It's safe to say that Kiyosaki believes that inflation will become so exorbitant that the average American consumer will be unable to carry their debt moving forward and will have to declare bankruptcy. Read Next: According to MoneyWise, Kiyosaki isn't a stranger to making bold claims about a possible economic collapse. We reviewed some of these claims in the statement to try to verify their accuracy. Bjegovic said there's nothing to suggest that the U.S. is currently on a path to hyperinflation. 'In that sense, the U.S. has never had hyperinflation since the Fed's inception in 1913,' he added. 'Hyperinflation has been commonly associated with countries experiencing extreme political or economic collapse, such as Weimar Germany (1920s), Zimbabwe (2000s), Venezuela (2010s), and Argentina (2020s).' Since the situation has never occurred in history, it's challenging to expect it to happen this time around. On a similar note, it's worth noting that the current Consumer Price Index (CPI) stood at 2.3% in April, the lowest level since February 2021. While inflation peaked — as reported by CNBC — at 9.1% in June 2022, it never approached the 50% figure required for a hyperinflationary state. With inflation cooling down, it doesn't appear that it will reach double digits anytime soon. Some of Kiyosaki's predictions for future asset prices are extremely bold. For context, the highest price of gold ever peaked at $3,500.05 per ounce on April 22, 2025, according to Investing News Network. Blake Mclaughlin, gold expert and vice president of exploration at Axcap Ventures, said gold's recent surge indicates underlying instability in the economy and that based on current conditions, its upward trend may continue. 'Having exposure to commodities like precious metals is a reasonable hedge for inflation. Generally, physical assets, where supplies cannot be readily or easily manipulated, provide a safe and honest place to invest,' he added. However, no evidence would suggest that gold can reach the value mentioned by Kiyosaki According to Yahoo Finance, iBitcoin hasn't passed $112,000 as of May 30 and silver is hovering around $33. These numbers are far from the substantial numbers shared by Kiyosaki. For bitcoin to go from $110,000 to one million is an extreme stretch and there's no evidence pointing towards this possibility. Upon further investigation, there aren't any other credible experts declaring that bitcoin can go as high as one million. Research shared on Business Insider showed there's only one crypto options trade that has bitcoin hitting $300,000 by the end of June and there's only one platform predicting that the digital asset will hit $200,000 by the end of the year. 'The auction Mr. Kiyosaki mentioned was held by the Treasury and not by the Fed,' Bjegovic said. It's essential to emphasize that the Fed didn't conduct this auction, as that's a crucial fact stated in the announcement. Reuters pointed out that the auction was poorly received, which led to a stock sell-off, with investors concerned about the national debt. However, the article also shared that the 20-year bonds usually see less demand than other maturities and that it wasn't a disaster. While the demand for the $16 billion sale of 20-year bonds was weak, it's also unfair to say that nobody showed up to the auction on May 21. Bjegovic said it went better than feared due to the circumstances at the time (Moody's downgrade, passage of the 'Big Beautiful Bill Act' and wider fiscal deficits). 'Treasury auctions are functioning well (as evidenced by other auctions that followed, like the two-year note this week) and inflation remains relatively low. The contents of Mr. Kiyosaki's post on X have grossly exaggerated both the current situation and what is likely to happen in the future,' Bjegovic explained. While it's important to be cautious about your investing approach, you also don't want to get caught up in the fear-mongering that can be evident on social media. As always, we recommend that you speak with a qualified financial professional before making any important decisions about your funds. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard These Cars May Seem Expensive, but They Rarely Need Repairs Warren Buffett: 10 Things Poor People Waste Money On This article originally appeared on Robert Kiyosaki Warns Hyperinflation Will 'Wipe Out' Millions Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.
A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? Advertisement A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Advertisement Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Advertisement Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. Advertisement
