Tag Archives: political economy

Yet Another Thought

Posted on by
2

President Donald Trump’s (R) moves against regulations regarding our showerheads, dishwashers, stoves and ranges, and other household appliances has triggered a thought in me regarding regulation and Congressional delegation.

As we all know, Congress has delegated rule-making to the Executive Branch agencies and Departments, and many of us think Congress has over-delegated. Congressmen have shown themselves loath to wholesale claw back that delegation and write their own regulations to give concrete effect to Congress’ statutes. Here’s an easier move Congress could make regarding that delegation and rule-making.

Let the agencies and Departments conduct their rule-making in the current way, with the requirement for a comment period, the regulators required to take seriously the public’s comments during that period, and the writing of the “final” rule. The added steps are these, and they are few:

1. The agency/Department is barred from implementing the rule at any time in draft form, including via “guidance” letter, before it takes formal, legal effect
2. When the agency/Department has finalized its rule, it must submit the rule to Congress for approval
3. Each house of Congress must approve the rule via floor debate and majority vote—this is the step that gives the rule legal effect, not agency/Department finalization
4. Each house of Congress must approve the rule within 10 calendar days of its submittal to Congress
5. If both houses do not approve the rule within 10 calendar days, the rule is deemed disapproved, and it cannot take effect
6. If the rule is disapproved, whether by overt disapproval or by failure to approve within 10 days, the rule and no rule similar to it can be brought up again for six years

That last rule is especially important: it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the House of Representatives three times, it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the Senate, and it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the White House and, by extension, of the leadership of those agencies and Departments.

NB: I posted the gist of this to DOGE’s Regulations.gov, which is DOGE’s call for, and Web site for receiving, suggestions for rule changes and rescission by us ordinary Americans.

Because when I got to the head of the line, they were all out of humility, so I made up for it with an extra helping of hubris.

Some Welfare Reform Ideas

Posted on by
Reply

Convert our welfare programs virtually entirely to hand up programs instead of the handout programs that they are currently. There are a relative few folks who truly cannot make their own way and need the support of handouts, but these would be more easily taken care of were the present waste in the form of payments to those who don’t need the help eliminated. That’s even before the fraud and abuse—two virtually synonymous terms in this context—gets dealt with.

Those who don’t really need the help can be dealt with in the following ways. First is to recognize the everyone is capable of falling on hard times, whether through things beyond their control or through their own negligence or mistakes. Give them access to hand up programs, but those programs must come with expiration deadlines after which payments to individuals cease. Extensions should be possible, but they should be difficult to obtain, with the onus on the recipient to prove he still needs them and still is doing his best to meet the criteria for a hand up.

Additionally, hand up programs must come with means testing. Means should be based on the Federal Poverty Guidelines, which in the main, they are. However, currently, “means” generally has thresholds running from 200% to 400%, of the FPG. That has to stop. If a family’s earned income is above the Poverty Guideline, they are tautologically not poverty-stricken. They do not need Federal welfare, even if living just above the Guideline is uncomfortable.

There must be a work requirement attached to all hand up programs. Able-bodied individuals must be working, looking for work actively (not just tossing a resume over the transom once a week or sitting around a union hall), or in training or schooling for work (financial support for the training/schooling, if needed, must come from the State or local jurisdictions).

Finally, Federal welfare must be a last resort after local community, church, and charity capacities are exhausted, then city, county/parish government jurisdiction and larger charity capacities are exhausted, then State and regional charity capacities are exhausted. Particularly regarding the governmental jurisdiction from the city/county/parish level on up to the State, capacity must be limited to existing revenues, with no increases in American taxpayer fund transfers into the State or local jurisdictions.

These are not new ideas, but it’s long past time to implement them. Doing so not only would benefit welfare recipients and those who do not really need welfare payments, it would strongly benefit our nation writ large by reducing drastically Federal spending, with the resulting impact on our yearly budget deficits and our national debt, and by increasing our GDP through all those folks going back to work, improving national productivity.

A Path

Posted on by
Reply

House Republicans are appropriately dismayed with the Senate’s reconciliation budget framework bill—the Republican Senators shied away from the deep spending cuts that are needed, passing only a lick and a promise threshold of $4 billion against the earlier House-passed bill with its serious threshold of $1.5 trillion on the risible fiction that the $4 billion is a floor, and that more cuts will occur in subsequent legislation.

I’ve suggested one path to passing a budget framework: debate the Senate’s bill, rather than killing it outright, and amend the Senate’s version to include serious spending cuts. Then hold out for those cuts in the House-Senate Conference that would result.

In conjunction with that, Speaker Mike Johnson (R, LA) could commit to not bringing any of the dozen appropriations bills that would be the actual spending bills to the floor for debate unless and until all dozen are passed out of committee and those committee’s spending cuts aggregate, across all of the bills, to the required total spending cuts of the House-passed $1.5 trillion, or a skosh less if that’s what fell out of the Conference Committee agreement and passage.

Along those lines, Johnson could require all of the committees, particularly the chairmen, to work with each other to achieve the total spending cuts and defense and border spending increases that are necessary.

That last also would push the committees—including the Chaos Caucus members and the timid-on-spending-cuts Republican members—to honor the Congressional sessions-old commitment to pass all of the appropriations bills on time, with no need for any Continuing Resolution foolishness.

Come to that, Johnson should make that appropriations bills commitment regardless of any framework bill conference committee outcome.

Update: After I wrote this and scheduled it for publishing, the House Republicans went ahead and passed the Senate’s bill 216-214, and they did it without any floor debate or amendment to make the bill meet their requirements.

Silliness, indeed.

We Want our Maypo®

Posted on by
Reply

HHS has terminated or canceled, as the case may be, some $12 billion in grants to the States for health-related programs, and a number of State Attorneys General, led by Arizona’s Kris Mayes (D) are suing to keep the dollars flowing.

Never mind that the grants were Wuhan Virus Situation-related, and that that pandemic is long since ended. HHS made that clear in the cancelation notice:

[T]he grants and cooperative agreements were issued for a limited purpose: to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.

This is clear enough. Yet, the AGs perform their artificial hysteria. Here’s Mayes in particular:

By slashing these grants, the Trump administration has launched an all-out attack on Arizona’s public health system—harming the entire state, but hitting rural communities the hardest. These cuts target the very places that rely most on this critical funding

This is risible on its face. There is no attack, all-out or limited, on Arizona. The State’s governing personnel know full well that the pandemic has been expired for some years, and from that, they knew just as well that the Federal funding for that purpose would come to an end. Arizona, et al., have had plenty of time to (re)allocate State funds to those ends, to the extent each State thought those ends still necessary.

The States chose otherwise, and now they’re demanding their never-ending stream of Federal dollars to continue.

We want our Maypo®, indeed.

Republican Silliness

Posted on by
Reply

This time it includes more than just a few members of the Republican Chaos Caucus. The Senate passed its version of a reconciliation bill that includes a suitable start on tax rate reductions, and the House Republican caucus agrees with that—those reductions are consistent with the earlier House-passed reconciliation bill. However, the Senate’s bill doesn’t include enough spending cuts to suit the House Republicans, and the House Republicans are right on that.

This is where the silliness comes in. A few Republicans, including some from outside the Chaos Caucus, have announced enough “No” votes before the Senate bill comes to the House floor to kill the bill outright. That’s silly.

Instead of just killing the bill, or refusing to take it up at all, the House Republicans and those one or two Progressive-Democrat Representatives capable of reasoned argument should debate the Senate’s reconciliation bill—they’d be the big boys in the room, since the Senate Republicans ducked away from the House’s bill altogether—and then pass the Senate bill amended to include spending cuts acceptable to the House. That would create a House-Senate disagreement in the same bill, which would send the modified bill to the normal House-Senate Conference, wherein the tax rate cuts would be preserved, and badly needed much larger spending cuts could—should—be inserted into a Conference-approved bill for up-or-down majority votes in each house. Likely the much larger spending cuts still would be less than the House so correctly wants, but they’d likely be much larger than the Senate’s going-in proposal.

And, as is the case with budget framework reconciliation bills, it would set the terms of debate for those spending cuts in each appropriation bill. The difference this time, though, would be those much larger spending cuts in the framework would set a much higher floor than heretofore for spending cuts in those dozen appropriation bills.