Category Archives: law

There is a Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Crystal FitzSimons, Food Research & Action Center President, is worried that reduced participation in SNAP is not an indication of reduced need for assistance.

[T]the law’s stricter time limits, administrative hurdles, and pending cost-shift to states, along with inadequate benefits, are pushing eligible households off the program.

She correctly outlined the benefits of SNAP (which, I claim, generalize to welfare programs in general):

When investments are made in SNAP, real progress is made toward lifting people out of poverty. …
When SNAP benefits better align with increasing food costs, more families stay above the poverty line. When barriers increase, the opposite happens.

But she proposed the wrong solution.

Through legislation, Congress should ensure that everyone has the nutrition they need to thrive rather than make it harder for families to put food on the table.

No.

In our federated republican form of government, the member States are responsible, each for its own internal affairs. It’s time for them to stop freeloading off the Federal government—freeloading off the citizens of the other 49 States—and start honoring their own obligations toward their own citizens. Each State has the money. It simply needs to reallocate its spending and stop taking ever more money away from its own citizens in the form of ever rising tax rates.

That’s the Point

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that one of New York City’s Progressive-Democrat Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s goal was a plethora of city government-run grocery stores to sell groceries at “affordable prices”—which, for Mamdani, meant “cheaper than what existing grocery stores were selling.” He could mean only that, else he’d be conceding that those prices already were affordable.

The outcome of such a move is laid out in the subheadline:

His socialist supermarkets could put New York’s little grocers out of business.

That’s the point.

Like any good socialist, Mamdani wants government to control the producers. Especially if it’s the particular socialist’s government. Getting rid of the little businesses demonstrates to the larger stores and the chains—whose individual stores generally are franchises run by moms and pops or collections of them run by small- or mid-sized businesses—that they’d better kowtow to the socialist government or leave. In either case, that would increase government’s control over the remains.

“Extreme Emotional Disturbance”

Posted on by
Reply

The lawyers defending Luigi Mangione for his (alleged) murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson are planning to say that Mangione admits to his murder, and then the lawyers will argue that he can’t be held liable for his murder because he had an angst.

Guilty but insane is a viable defense in some jurisdictions, and New York, where Mangione is supposed to have committed his crime, has something of the sort. Typically, the plea results in confinement in a psychiatric facility for treatment, and on successful treatment (if that occurs), the guilty person is then transferred to a prison wherein he serves the remainder of the sentence he would have received had he been simply convicted of the crime.

That works for me.

In the event, the defense decided not to run that defense by the judge or the jury. Too bad, from my perspective. That would have gotten Mangione locked up sooner, saving the court time and the people tax money.

The Gestating Parent Governor

Posted on by
Reply

New York’s Progressive-Democratic governor, Nancy Hochul, styles herself as her State’s “mom governor.” Maybe not anymore.

Under the bill that passed in Albany last week, the word mother would be replaced by “gestating parent” and father would become “non-gestating parent.”
The bill says that proceedings to establish “parentage” (the new word for paternity) can be started by “the gestating parent or alleged non-gestating parent.” The argument made for this rewrite is that current law doesn’t reflect the diversity of family life in the 21st century, which includes same-sex couples and surrogacy arrangements.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party—the party of misogyny, now extending to ignoring what it is that makes a woman a woman—her biology. Now it’s up to Hochul: if she signs the legislation, she’ll be insulting millions of New York’s citizens while pandering to Party’s central and left wings. If she vetoes it, she’ll likely be harassed by Party for the rest of her term. If she neither signs nor vetoes, but merely allows it to become law without her signature, she’ll be showing herself a coward, afraid to take a stand.

Trade-Through Elimination

Posted on by
Reply

The SEC’s trade rule, in effect for a bit over 20 years, requires trading platforms operating in the US to execute investors’ trades at the best price available across the market, even if that means one platform must go to another platform to execute the trade. The SEC wants to rescind that rule as no longer necessary. The SEC says,

Currently, the US equity markets are highly automated and interconnected and the Commission’s concerns expressed at the time of [the rule’s] adoption in 2005 regarding the lack of mechanisms to connect markets is no longer an issue[.]

The SEC now argues that (as paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal)

stockbrokers already have a strict legal duty to execute trades with the most favorable terms for their clients, making the trade-through rule superfluous.

The exchanges’ “legal duty” is all well and good, but then there are the enforcement costs for violations of that rule. These costs are incurred by the government (i.e., us taxpayers) from enforcing compliance with a case’s outcome, incurred by individual (and institutional) investors from raising a ruckus in the first place, and incurred as opportunity costs during the time between detection of a violation and final adjudication.

Then there’s the difficulty of detecting a violation in the first place, especially for retail investors.

The SEC also argues that rule rescission would save the platforms the cost of buy[ing] expensive market data feeds linked to a bevy of exchanges.

Yet, in order to satisfy that legal duty, the platforms still would need access to some version of those data feeds, or at least to the data in them, in order, in real time (which is microseconds in today’s interconnectivity), to identify that best price available.

This is a rule that should remain in effect. The cost to the platforms is trivial: $54.2 million to $77 million annually, compared with nearly $30 billion in aggregated US platform income. Violations of the trade-through rule, importantly, are far more easily detected, including by retail investors.