Category Archives: regulation

Some Progress

Posted on by
Reply

The Alabama House of Representatives, on the last day of this year’s legislative session, passed—66-28—a bill that makes felonies out of performing certain essentially irreversible transgender procedures on children. The State’s Senate had passed the bill earlier, so now it goes to Governor Kay Ivey (R) for signature and passage into law.

Among the procedures proscribed by the bill are hormone treatment, puberty blockers, and gender-reassignment surgery.

It’s one thing if adults want to undergo transgender procedures, but it’s quite another for children. Not only are children—from an intellectual and emotional maturation standpoint as well as legally—incapable of making such decisions, they’re incapable of deciding for themselves their underlying desired gender recognition status. That status is determined solely by a child’s parents, and so are the decisions to act on their determination.

Such procedures are irreversible, and neither the parent nor the child can undo them later if either should wish to change his mind or recognize a mistake and wish to correct it. A parent imposing such a decision on the child is as guilty of child abuse as they would be of beatings or genital mutilation.

Ivey has not said whether she would sign the bill, and her office did not respond to a request by the wire service for comment.

It’s unclear why Ivey is hesitating. Protecting children from abuse should be a goal of everyone, including politicians.

Canceling Charter Schools

Posted on by
1

The Biden-Harris administration is trying to. His Department of Education Secretary, Miguel Cardona, is proposing a cancelation rule, cynically called, in part, Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program. The rule provides, among other things:

prov[e] there’s a demand for a new school—e.g., evidence satisfactory to Miguel Cardona that there is “over-enrollment” in existing public schools

Prove to the government’s satisfaction, that is. A government that the teachers unions, recall, heavily influence—lately regarding Wuhan Virus requirements for opening and operating in existing public schools.

show[] how they would ensure diversity

Not how they would ensure a quality education. That’s no longer a factor under this administration or the teachers unions.

limit the degree of control over their own schools that would be allowed outside for-profit companies

Because Big Government Knows Better than actual businessmen and educators how to run a school.

[A]n applicant [for Federal startup seed money] must propose to collaborate with at least one traditional public school or traditional school district

And

In its application, an applicant must provide a letter from each partnering traditional public school or school district demonstrating a commitment to participate in the proposed charter-traditional collaboration.

Under these two requirements, a new charter school functionally must get permission from its competitors—those public schools—even to operate. That permission is granted in part, or withheld entirely, by whether an existing partner school will agree, or not, to “partner” with the supplicant applicant.

The proposed rule goes on like that for over a dozen Federal Register pages, every single one of which is unnecessary, since this…rule…is less than unnecessary, it’s Government overreach.

It’s long past time to put these people out of office.

Student Debt

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) is at it again. Now he’s extending for yet another time, and by diktat, not by Congressional action, the “moratorium” on student debt repayment requirements. As The Wall Street Journal‘s editors noted, this is debt cancellation on the installment plan.

Never mind that our economy—according to no less an authority than Biden, anyway—is fully capable of return[ing] to more normal routines. In what amounts to a deep insult to grown American citizens who still have student debt outstanding, Biden is excluding them from that return to normal. Apparently, Biden does not think this particular group of Americans is capable of much of anything.

I have a better idea. It begins with ending the debt moratoria, which only hurts those debtors, the lenders who lent to them, and us taxpayers, whose tax remittals will go—eventually—to those lenders in partial mitigation.

My idea continues with garnishing the wages and welfare payments of those without wages, of those debtors who claim to be unable to pay, even if those garnished payments are less than the payments the student loan contracts specified.

My idea finishes with limiting the root cause (to coin a phrase) of a student need to borrow in the first place: the over-high cost of going to college. One branch of this path is to get rid of the stigma of not being a college graduate. The trades are far more important than graduating with degrees in women’s studies, this or that race studies, or basket-weaving froo-froo. The trades are every bit as important as degrees in architecture or engineering: nothing gets built, no matter how creatively or usefully drawn up or engineered, without tradesmen—plumbers, electricians, carpenters, heavy equipment operators—to do the actual work. That needs to be emphasized.

Another branch is for the Federal government to stop sending taxpayer money to colleges and universities. What started out as a good idea, enlisting these institutions in basic research, has become badly abused in hiring “diversity” mavens, pushing identity separations, expansions of those froo-froo studies. The Federal monies have become excuses to hire excessive administrative overhead and to raise tuition to absorb the Federal influx. Cut it out.

A third branch is to require two things of colleges and universities: one is to publish, for each major the school offers, including “independent studies,” the average salaries of its graduates five years after graduation. The other is to require the college/university whose student applies for a loan(s) to be the lender of the majority of the borrowed amount or to guarantee the entire loan(s) provided by any other lender.

Insufficient

Posted on by
Reply

People’s Republic of China government securities regulators are offering a change to PRC securities laws that would remove a requirement that

audit inspections of overseas-listed Chinese companies be done mainly by Chinese regulators.

Another part of the PRC regulators’ offer:

Under the draft rules, the burden of protecting state secrets now falls to private companies as well. They have to report to the financial watchdog and other authorities before cooperating with overseas regulators.

Far from being a serious offer, this is insulting.

PRC regulators of companies possessing PRC state secrets—or held to possess them by the PRC government—will have too easy a time using the secrets excuse to delay, obfuscate, or outright censor any effort at an audit.

Audits not being done “mainly” by PRC regulators are not the same as agreeing to let host nation auditors—American auditors in our case—have full, complete, open access to PRC company books immediately on request, including no-notice requests.

Anything less is too much interference with the audits of companies listed on our exchanges, whether foreign companies are PRC-domiciled or elsewhere.

The SEC must not take this move by the PRC seriously.

All Lives Don’t Matter

Posted on by
Reply

Certainly not in Colorado.

[Governor Jaried, (D)] Polis signed HB 22-1279, the “Reproductive Health Equity Act,” which the governor said “codifies a person’s fundamental right to make reproductive health-care decisions free from government interference.”

And this:

A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derivative rights under the laws of this state[.]

Baby’s lives don’t matter; the State and anyone residing in it are free to murder unborn babies, and those babies don’t even get a voice to speak for them in court. This pretty much says it all regarding Colorado’s Polis (D) and the State’s Progressive-Democratic Party-controlled legislature.

But not quite. There’s this, too, in this…law:

The law prohibits state and local public entities from denying, restricting, interfering with, or discriminating against a person’s right to…have an abortion. It also bars public entities from restricting abortion due to the individual’s “potential, actual, or perceived impact on the pregnancy, the pregnancy’s outcomes, or the pregnant individual’s health.”

The persons being called upon to execute the abortion, whether private or public, are barred from refusing to do so due to that person’s religious beliefs. This Progressive-Democrat move also is a naked assault on religion and on simple conscience.