Author Archives: eehines

Two More Panic-Mongering Lawsuits

Posted on by
Reply

Newly installed OMB Director and Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought has moved to curb the abuses of the CFPB by ordering staff to issue no more new rules, to stop new investigations, and to suspend existing investigations and litigations pending a general review of the CFPB’s activities. Vought also has authorized DOGE personnel to audit CFPB’s financial activities, including its payroll.

The National Treasury Employees Union is mightily upset, and it has filed two suits to stop these cease and desists and the audit. The NTEU alleged in the first case

It is substantially likely that these initial directives are a precursor to a purge of CFPB’s workforce, which is now prohibited from fulfilling the agency’s statutory mission[.]

In the second case, the union alleged that the CFPB

granted access, and by extension, disclosed employee records to individuals associated with DOGE without employee consent to such disclosure.

I will be brief, and the NTEU will not find it pleasant.

The union’s first case is entirely speculative as no harm has yet occurred, nor has the union alleged any harm actually has occurred. The suit should be tossed on that ground alone. Regarding the union’s allegation of prohibition, this is pure fantasy: the activities are HIAed, not prohibited, and whether the CFPB is functioning as statutorily required in this context is a political assessment, not one that is justiciable.

In the second case, the union’s allegations are, once again, purely speculative, and no harm has yet occurred, nor has the union alleged any actual harm has occurred. All it has done is raise a series of scary boogieman possibilities for some time in a nebulous future. This case ought to be tossed on that ground as well. Regarding the consent allegation, the CFPB’s employees—all Federal government employees—agreed to have their pay records audited on demand when they signed on to their government employment. That allegation also should be tossed even if the larger case is continued.

The evident frivolousness of these two suits is one more reason why government unions are destructively counterproductive and why the sinecure nature of civil service jobs needs to be severely curtailed.

Defanging the PRC

Posted on by
Reply

At least by a little. As part of the People’s Republic of China’s economic war that it’s waging against us, they have moved to block important mergers involving American and non-PRC companies and today are threatening our major tech companies (and by extension our smaller tech companies and those companies that supply or otherwise do business with these).

Beijing has already said it is investigating Nvidia and Google over alleged antitrust issues. Other American companies in its sights include Apple, Silicon Valley tech company Broadcom, and semiconductor-design software vendor Synopsys, said people familiar with the matter. Synopsys has a $35 billion acquisition awaiting approval by Beijing.

And

[The PRC] said it had opened an antitrust probe against Google.

And

In 2018, amid US-China trade conflicts in the first Trump administration, Qualcomm terminated its proposed purchase of Dutch chip maker NXP Semiconductors after failing to obtain clearance from China.

And

US chip maker Broadcom’s takeover of VMware, valued at $61 billion when it was unveiled in May 2022, was in peril until a meeting between Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in November 2023.

If these companies did no business with companies domiciled in the PRC and did no business within the PRC, that nation would be unable to go after them at all, including having no ability to block mergers between US and non-PRC companies. The PRC’s ability to damage our economy would be restricted commensurately. Of course, withdrawing from the PRC would be expensive in the short run, but it’s a large economic world, and while the PRC is a major player in it, that nation is not the only player. The magnitude of its role, too, would shrink as we reduce our economic ties with it.

Another, central, question is this: what’s the cost of letting an enemy nation have so much influence over our economy?

Carpetbagger

Posted on by
Reply

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (D)—and former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which is of singular importance here—wants to run for Senator in…Michigan. He’s leading all the other current Progressive-Democrat contenders according to some polling data.

The Progressive-Democrats in the State don’t seem to care about Buttigieg’s carpetbagger status.

Progressive-Democrats do care about other carpetbaggers, though:

• Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate Republican Mehmet Oz (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he had a house in New Jersey
• Michigan Senatorial candidate Mike Rogers was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he also has a house in Florida
• Wisconsin Senatorial candidate Eric Hovde (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because has a house, also, in California, and a business in Utah
• Montana Senator Tim Sheehy (R) was accused of carpetbagging against the State’s incumbent Progressive-Democrat Jon Tester for the sin of having grown up in Minnesota, never minding that Sheehy had been a Montana citizen for the 10 years before his campaign and election
• Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he had stakes in multiple properties from Costa Rica to New York City to the Florida Keys.

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ hypocrisy is embedded in nearly everything they say and do.

Policy Chaos?

Posted on by
Reply

The State Department, following President Donald Trump’s (R) EO stating that it was US policy that there are only the male and female genders, has eliminated the X gender on new US passports along with barring passport holders from changing the gender listed on their passports.

The ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project staff attorney, Sruti Swaminathan:

The plaintiffs in this case have had their lives disrupted by a chaotic policy clearly motivated by animus that serves zero public interest[.]

Chaotic Policy? Clearly no. Policy is being—properly—stabilized at the status quo ante.

Blocking CRT in Schools and Teachers’ Feigned Fears

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is moving to deny Federal funding to K-12 schools that have Critical Race Theory in their curricula. Teachers are claiming to be in a panic about that. For instance,

[s]ome New England teachers are worried the new restrictions on teaching CRT could cause teachers to self-censor out of fear that any discussion on race would make them a target of the new administration….

No, those are supposedly grown adults sulking and threatening to throw toddler-level temper tantrums, planning to hold their breaths until they turn blue in the face, if the don’t get their way.

There’s nothing at all in banning CRT indoctrination—which in its overt bigotry insists on racially intrinsic oppressor/oppressee status depending on the skin color of the individual, which further insists that victimhood is inherent in one race or one gender and not at all a frame of mind with an inherent ability to overcome being a victim (including taking coherent effective action in those instances where a person really has been victimized)—that prevents teachers from discussing race, or teaching its effects, with such works as Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or James Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time or any of Zora Neale Hurston’s writing.

These pseudo-teachers would be no loss at all, were they to carry on their tantrums by quitting teaching altogether.