[Mahler9th]

"You seem to be arguing that because the exemption is so miniscule compared to California other problems, and because so few people will be affected by the new law, that it’s completely reasonable to act in an oppressive, arbitrary and capricious manner against such a minority.

In addition, you seem to argue that those few of whom this law would impact are somehow acting inappropriately by virtue of their opposition to such tyranny and that they simply do not matter."

I understand that not everyone has the time, ability and/or interest to become better-informed when they post in forums.

That is part of human nature, and reading "communications" in forums is not much different, if at all, from other ways we can be reminded of that.

I see words like "oppressive, arbitrary and capricious," and "tyranny," and yet it does not appear, at least to me, that folks using such words have any idea what happened to this Bill.

One might have used such words in forums like this in the 70's when cats became mandated at the federal level. But internet forums did not exist.

Now we have the www, and via that tech, folks can become better-informed about a variety of things, including the legislative progress of the Bill in question.

I have read parts of the Bill, and it appears quite complex. Part of the complexity seems related to a desire to create effective guardrails to prevent abuse of any further exemption.

It certainly is possible that others argued that the need for robust guardrails is low, for example by arguing, with supporting data, that there are not enough vehicles is some pre-1975 range to make any difference in CA smog levels, should they be exempted.

However these same folks may have a secret stash of 20,000 of the worst polluting American muscle cars just waiting to be unleashed with an exemption.

It is also possible, if not likely, that in CA, the sausage making process includes a required appropriations step, and even if Bills reach that step with all sides agreeing on known and likely budget implications, the gatekeepers in the appropriations step might suspend such a Bill.

This type of scenario is possible, as are many others.

Government sausage making for an entire state is perhaps different from sausage making at an enterprise like Usinger's.

I am reminded of a glimpse I got into sausage making way back 25 years ago, when these forums were quite different.

One of my good friends, a "DOJ employee," (that has a federal building named after him through an act of congress), was visiting with his wife who was, and still is what some might call a lobbysist. Very high level.

She told me that her organization's wardrobe budget, just for her, was $10k per month.

That is not likely a budget line item that existed at Usinger's at that time.