Category Archives: regulation

Mail-in Ballots

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News headline lays out the error.

Trump’s push for ending mail-in ballots and voting machines means process likely to fall on states

This is what Art I, Sect 4, of our Constitution says about elections:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Whether Congress chooses to tailor a ban on mail-in ballots (other than, I say, for military personnel stationed outside their voting precincts and businessmen on extended business-related travel outside their precincts) and electronic voting machines to each of the 50 States or enact a nationwide ban, such a move would be entirely constitutional.

Yes and No

Posted on by
Reply

Just one example on the matter of drug approvals.

A case in point is Replimune’s melanoma treatment, which the FDA rejected last month. About a third of patients who hadn’t responded to prior immunotherapy showed a strong response to Replimune’s in a clinical trial.
Tumors shrank in nearly all patients, and responses proved durable over three years. Serious side effects were rare. Oncologists who treated patients in the trial hailed the results.

These are responses in absolute terms. The drug was safe, and it worked.

The FDA blocked its release into the market though:

[T]he FDA said the trial was “not considered to be an adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation that provides substantial evidence of effectiveness.”
Its quibble is that the trial lacked a control group.

This is a demand for a relative outcome—whether the drug worked better or worse, and whether it was safer or less so, than the status quo. The status quo is what a control group presents.

The answer, though, is not to stop “quibbling” about control groups when assessing drug trial efficacy. Instead, it’s necessary for the FDA to get out of the business of requiring, as a condition of approval, that a drug work. FDA’s role should hold out only for assessing a drug’s safety. The market, formed by patients and their doctors, will do a perfectly fine job of assessing the drug’s effectiveness, with no more exceptions than are extant in any other market. That Replimune’s drug was shown to work in absolute terms is a happy additional outcome and should not represent even this much of an acceptance criterion.

This is where FDA Commissioner and medical doctor Marty Makary can—and should—make the changes to the FDA’s approval processes. A doctor’s primary injunction is “first, do no harm.” So it should be with the FDA. A doctor continues, with his patient, actively to treat the medical problem. The FDA, on the other hand, should stop at the do no harm part. Let the practicing doctors and their patients do the rest.

Can’t Come Soon Enough

Posted on by
Reply

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is moving to rescind an Obama-reign rule that classified atmospheric CO2—plant food—as a pollutant and a threat to public health.

The rescission can’t come soon enough; it’s cost us more than enough already in dollars and foregone hydrocarbon-sourced—which is to say, cheap and reliable and clean—energy generation. It’s cost us more than enough already in dollars diverted to patently unreliable “green” energy sources like solar and wind, the former which fails utterly when the sun doesn’t shine ( and that’s not only at night), and the latter which fails utterly when the wind doesn’t blow or it blows too hard. Windmills have additional, drastically destructive, impacts on birds, on aquatic life, and on our beaches when offshore windmills shed their blades.

Naturally, the Climate Funding Industry and a potful of fee-seeking lawyers will sue and try to tie up the rescission for as long as they can. That just puts a premium on pushing ahead, promptly, with the rescission.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The Straits Times, a Singapore-based e-newspaper, has an interesting piece regarding Europe and exit taxes. The lede bullets include these two items:

  • European countries like Germany, Norway, and Belgium are increasing exit taxes to retain wealthy residents and collect revenue on unrealised capital gains
  • These taxes, levied on individuals leaving with significant assets (e.g., over €500,000 in Germany)…

The e-newspaper is of unknown provenance and reliability, at least to me, so take this with a grain of salt. The claims are entirely plausible, though, given the European nations’ broad range of taxes and high tax rates, and the states’ basic assumption that the money citizens earn is for the state to tax and not actually for the citizens to earn and remit a portion.

If the description is true, though, this is just one more reason for successful folks (not just the wealthy: Germany’s Purchasing Power Parity per capita GDP is €61,800. Those €500,000 in assets is upper middle class) to push the pace on leaving Europe before doing so gets even more financially difficult. The Soviet Union erected an Iron Curtain—literally in some places—in order to keep folks from leaving, so as to keep them working for the state. It looks like Europe is erecting a Euro Wall to keep the folks who earn money from leaving, so as to keep them earning money for the state. How long before they erect a 100% tax Euro Wall?

Yeah, And?

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department are moving to reduce the supplementary leverage ratio that big banks, and only those big banks, must maintain. The ratio is the amount of money those specifically-selected-by-government banks must maintain over and above their regular capital requirements against times of “market turmoil.” The reduction would make available much more money for those banks to lend into our economy.

Fed governor Michael Barr, once the Fed’s top bank regulator is opposed to the move. He’s cited by The Wall Street Journal as saying that the proposal would “significantly increase” the risk of a big bank failure.

To which I say, so what?

The failure of a “big” bank would be disruptive in the short term and potentially damaging to the particular bank’s creditors—depositors and others lending money to the bank—but in the intermediate- and long-term, such a failure would be net beneficial to our economy.

A big bank failure—without government bailout—would go a long way toward mitigating, even eliminating, the market distortions of an enterprise in our private economy—which is the economy outside of the government—being held as too big to fail and so guaranteed our taxpayers’ dollars being used to keep it alive, despite that lousy management having, over an extended period, brought the enterprise to that strait.

Reducing the supplementary leverage ratio also is a way of injecting more money into our economy without it being government tax money being injected. Our economy’s money supply would be increased, or not, based on sound business decision-making rather than on flawed political decision-making.

Fewer market distortions, less tolerance of bad performance in our market place, and reduced special treatments of particular businesses, would only make our market economy freer and more efficient and more prosperous for us all.