Category Archives: regulation

Some of Biden’s and his Progressive-Democratic Party’s Racism Stymied

Posted on by
Reply

At least temporarily. Recall the American Rescue Plan Act which the Progressive-Democratic Party rammed through on strict party lines via reconciliation and that President Joe Biden (D) happily signed into law. That law

allows for automatic loan forgiveness up to 120% of the federal loan for farmers or ranchers who are “socially disadvantaged,” which is defined as “Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, or Asian, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”

It’s hard to get any more blatantly racist than that: it explicitly discriminates on the basis of race, barring Americans of the wrong race from participating at all in the program.

Union City, TN, farmer Robert Holman had sued the USDA, as administrator of the loan forgiveness program, on the basis of that blatant, intrinsic program racism. Last week, US District Judge S Thomas Anderson, Chief Judge of the Western District of Tennessee, issued an injunction against the USDA blocking it from issuing any forgivenesses until the case has made its way all the way through the courts and likely appeals.

Southeastern Legal Foundation General Counsel Kimberly Hermann, whose firm was one of two representing farmer Holman, has most of the right of it:

The Biden administration uses equity as a license to punish Americans—here farmers—because of their skin color. The Court’s order sends a clear message to President Biden that racially exclusive programs, whether on a farm or in a school, are unconstitutional.

Biden didn’t act alone on this, though. As noted above, the Progressive-Democratic Party—acting alone in Congress—passed the bill that Biden signed. His appointees in the Ag Department enthusiastically tried to act on that racism.

Heads up, though, and here’s the rest of the right of it: an injunction is only temporary and will be superseded by the district court’s final ruling. That ruling then will stand or fall on appeal, and the Biden administration’s and Progressive-Democrat-run Congress’ bigotry ultimately will be blocked or restored by the final appellate ruling.

One Price of Central Control

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China’s Cyberspace Administration of China is investigating the alleged wrong-doing of Didi Global’s ride-hailing arm, Didi Chuxing Technology Co; both entities are domiciled in the PRC.

By itself, that’s no big deal; governments are allowed to investigate businesses that regulators suspect of wrong-doing.

Here’s the problem:

No new user registration is allowed during the review….

That’s ostensibly to keep risks from any alleged misbehaviors from growing further.

However. Never mind that Didi Chuxing hasn’t been shown to have misbehaved in any way; it must be restricted.

Suppose that in the end, the regulator indeed finds no actual wrongs done. How would a Didi Chuxing be made whole after the investigation’s closure? How would such a company (re)gain all those missed new customers (for instance)?

Worse,

[t]he regulator didn’t say how long the review would last….

That damage is made worse the longer the investigation is allowed to go on.

Now, there’s this: how many governments would consider using a regulatory agency or a regulator’s enduring investigation to punish a disfavored business or person solely on political grounds?

I can think of at least three….

And now, just two days after that move, the PRC has ordered app-store operators to remove the app altogether–even though the “investigation” is only just begun.

Hmm….

Another Progressive-Democrat Gives Another Part of the Game Away

Posted on by
1

Laura Saunders, in her Friday Wall Street Journal column concerning the Roth IRAs, the rich and deplorable, and us average Americans, has a striking quote from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D, OR).

Saunders was writing about how efforts to lay punitive limits and punitive taxes on the Roth IRAs of the super wealthy can only have deleterious effects on the rest of us.

Here’s Wyden’s statement on the matter:

IRAs were designed to provide retirement security to middle-class families, not allow mega-millionaires and billionaires to avoid paying taxes[.]

Wyden has two beefs here. One is his progressive view that the wealthy don’t deserve to be under the same law as the rest of us Americans; the success of the wealthy must be called out and that success denied them—because the rich are the piñata of government disfavored groups of Americans.

The other is that business about avoiding paying taxes. Never mind that the rich and deplorable—and the merely rich—already pay the vast bulk of the taxes the Federal government collects, while the bottom half of income earners pay close to nothing in taxes, and the very bottom—including those who don’t have any job-related income—get tax payments from the rest of us. The amount the rich pay isn’t enough for Progressive-Democrats. More is better.

All of it is better, yet.

Compelling Interest and Racism

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors correctly decry President Joe Biden’s (D) race-based “equity” programs and diktats as taking our nation back to an ugly past.

By equity, Mr Biden means preferences for some racial groups over others to achieve equal outcomes.

And

Mr Biden sells his agenda as taking America into the future. But allocating government funds or privileges by race is a step back to an uglier past. … If applied on the scale Mr Biden hopes, America would become a nation of groups competing for racial spoils and defined outcomes rather than seeking equal opportunity for everyone.

The editors added this near the end of their piece, and here I demur from them.

Strict scrutiny requires that the government have a compelling interest for discriminating by race, and that it must use the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. If less restrictive ways can achieve the same purpose, the policy fails.

There shouldn’t be any strict scrutiny on such matters; the policies should fail on their face. There’s nothing in the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections clause that permits Government-determined “compelling interest” to override our Constitution [emphasis added].

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All of that plainly applies to our Federal government every bit as much as it does to each of the governments of the several States.

The Strict Scrutiny standard, as applied here, has been unconstitutional from the start and was an earlier Supreme Court attempt to duck its responsibility in applying our Constitution rather than seeking out excuses and methodologies for getting outside of it.

Government’s compelling interest is to defend and uphold our Constitution.

Full stop.

Rule By Law

Posted on by
Reply

…and not rule of law, which our Constitution so strongly pushes. That’s what SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has decided to do.

The SEC announced this month that it will suspend enforcement of new rules issued under former Chairman Jay Clayton that subjected proxy advisory firms to the same anti-fraud rules as public companies and required them to disclose their business conflicts.

Just pick and choose the rules the Biden appointee deigns enforce. Don’t move first to change the rule, while enforcing it while it’s in force. Gensler Knows Better which rules are fit, and disdains the need for someone so awesome to submit his wishes to lesser masses who might impudently comment contrariwise to any change he deems necessary during such a rule change’s comment period.

Oh, wait:

Mr Gensler has directed SEC staff to consider revising the rules.

Give him a rule that better suits him. But he’ll still ignore the existing rule as beneath his dignity.

This is rule by law—which is another way of saying rule by men with the raw power to reign.