The Supreme Court has ordered a restructuring of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: its single director, removable only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, among other things, was an unconstitutional abridgment of Executive Branch authority.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, said that the
setup meant the CFPB’s director was unaccountable to the executive branch, creating an unconstitutional diminishment of presidential power.
“The CFPB’s single-director structure contravenes this carefully calibrated system by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one[.]”
A writer, published in Wall Street Journal‘s Letters, responded to the idea that emphasis on education credentials over actual experience averred that the emphasis isn’t at all misplaced.
It’s more likely that there is a limited number of high-wage jobs available and that the market has efficiently set the wage based on the supply/demand curves.
This is a remarkably ill-informed claim, assuming as it does that we actually have an efficient market in labor.
Such a market cannot exist, though, in an environment where unions have monopoly power over labor in the industries in which they operate, nor can it exist in an economy with such widespread minimum wage mandates.
That’s the House Progressive-Democrats’ plan. They voted on the thing last Friday.
One of the rationalizations for the move is this, from the District of Columbia’s “shadow senator” Paul Strauss:
DC [he’s cited as saying], created in July 1790, pays more federal taxes than any other non-voting territory and does not receive proportional services for their population, which is larger than those of Wyoming and Vermont.
“We are essentially a donor state,” he said.
That’s not an argument for statehood, though. It’s an argument for ending the transfers of citizens’ and their business’ tax monies from one State/territory/District to another other than in times of regional emergency.
So far, hospitals will be required to publish the prices they negotiate with their insurers. This will facilitate the public’s ability to comparison shop for hospital procedures and services so as to drive down costs to the public through competition.
The American Hospital Association had sued in Federal court to block a new Trump administration rule that required such publication, but the judge presiding, Carl Nichols, granted the government’s motion for summary dismissal.
Aside from withstanding the inevitable sequence of appeals, a significant part of what’s left, now, is a requirement for hospitals to publish their success rates for various types of procedure and service.
That’s how the European Union views Great Britain as the EU continues to demand that Great Britain accede to demands they wish to impose on a sovereign nation—solely to bring that subordinate polity to heel. Examples of the EU’s demands:
post-Brexit sovereignty to make Britain more competitive via deregulation, environmental rules or tax reform—these must not occur
UK’s ability to subsidize industries in line with EU state-aid regulations—this must be curtailed
The first must not be allowed explicitly because of that competition. The second may be bad business overall, but it’s a domestic matter.
The “unrest” sparked by the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and now by the killing of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, is encouraging Congressmen to include increased funding for State and local jurisdictions in any “next stimulus” package that might be in the offing.
States and cities facing budget shortfalls have warned they might need to pare back spending on public safety, including police officers and fire protection.
“Including police officers and fire protection” is a cynical excuse for spending yet more OPM.
House Progressive-Democrats have unveiled their “police reform” bill, a proposal crafted explicitly without Republican input. That last is neither here nor there for this post’s purpose. What matters is this claim in Eliza Collins’ Wall Street Journalarticle describing that bill and its alleged purpose:
The bill doesn’t provide any new federal funds for police departments, except where constitutionally mandated for data collection, according to Democratic aides.
This is an amazing claim. Maybe those Progressive-Democratic aides—or even Reporter Collins—would like to point to that clause in our Constitution that mandates Federal funds to police departments for any purpose, let alone “data collection.”