Category Archives: regulation

Democrat Disingenuosity

Posted on by
Reply

An example is provided by a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

President Obama says that critics of his plan to decarbonize the economy are “the special interests and their allies in Congress” repeating “the same stale arguments” about “killing jobs and businesses and freedom.” He adds that “even more cynical, we’ve got critics of this plan who are actually claiming that this will harm minority and low-income communities.”

His EPA, though, has let the cat out of the bag in its Clean Power Plot Plan:

The EPA authors are careful to reiterate that “its benefits will greatly exceed its costs.” (Sure.) But then they ever so gingerly observe that “it is also important to ensure that to the extent there are increases in electricity costs, that those do not fall disproportionately on those least able to afford them.”

The actual cynicism is in the Democratic Party’s assumption that Americans are so stupid we won’t see, or won’t care about, this naked redistribution plan. On the other hand, Obama’s EPA did very carefully bury the plan 1,500 pages in to its 1,560-page Plan.

The FTC Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Trade Commission in its 100-year history has never agreed on formal principles for policing companies engaged in “unfair” competition. That looks set to change.

Members of the FTC are close to a bipartisan agreement to lay out for the first time how the commission views its authority to bring cases against businesses it believes compete unfairly, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

An accord would be a breakthrough for Democrat and Republican commissioners who have clashed over when and how the FTC should deploy the century-old Section 5 of the FTC Act in enforcement matters. The provision declares “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful. But the agency has faced criticism that with no formal guidelines or parameters, it is hard for anyone—businesses as well as regulators—to know what may be considered unfair.

“Unfair” in this context is a purely legal definition, and there already are laws on the books governing what is and is not permissible in our commerce. We have anti-trust laws that govern abuse of monopoly power. We have truth-in-advertising laws that govern how businesses can market their products. We have contract laws that sanction dishonesty in contract negotiations and that define liability when mistaken, but fundamentally honest, statements are made in those negotiations.

That’s all that we need, that’s all the FTC needs, and the FTC has had that for well over 100 years, dating at least to the Sherman Antitrust Act. This new “accord” will be just another bureaucratic nightmare, adding layers of compliance requirements and determinations to any FTC action—and so elevating costs for any business the FTC contemplates violating in some way.

Underlying all of that is all of this: Americans don’t need a rule, or a “guideline,” to govern every aspect of every action in their lives.

Another Thought on SEC “Courts”

Posted on by
Reply

The SEC runs its own courts as it looks to punish those it has decided have engaged in civilly, if not criminally, wrong doings. As I’ve written before, the SEC brings its cases, appoints and pays the judges who’ll adjudicate the cases, and it has first say on any appeals.

In just such a case, an accused person facing a flipped witness (one to whom the SEC has made certain blandishments regarding is own misbehaviors in return for his testimony against a fellow misbehaver) is worried about the effects of those blandishments over the course of his trial.

Critics…worry that key safeguards on the use of cooperators in criminal cases are lacking in the SEC’s administrative courts, where the agency…[has] the power to decide what to fine the cooperator after he or she testifies.

The agency’s multiple roles strike at the “fundamental fairness” of its hearings, violating the checks and balances required by the constitution, [accused’s’] lawyers said in a court filing.

Because the SEC is in an even better position—its in-house position—to effectively “encourage” proper testimony from its “cooperating” witnesses than are prosecutors in actual State or Federal trial courts.

Naturally, the presiding SEC administrative judge demurs.

The SEC in-house judge overseeing the case rejected this argument, saying it was an “attack on the administrative framework” of the SEC’s internal tribunal.

Well, NSS. It’s a valid attack, too, against a tribunal sorely lacking in fairness, much less due process.

“Gig” Economy Workers

Posted on by
Reply

These unfortunates are exploited by evil startup companies. Or so say unions, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and Democrats looking to maintain the dependency of others on them in government.

In the last year such companies as Uber, Lyft, HandyBook, Instacart, Postmates and Try Caviar have been slapped with lawsuits arguing that they have misclassified workers as “independent contractors,” which aren’t covered by most federal and state labor regulations.

Another startup, Homejoy Inc, has shut down because it couldn’t raise its next round of capital due to such suits.

The nuisance suits also demand such union froo-froo as

…backpay for overtime, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, unpaid meal breaks and business expenses. Homejoy was accused of not providing 30-minute meal breaks every five hours.

All of these things, all of the gig economy businesses, give initial or additional income to the folks doing the work. The business model also threatens the viability of unions and Democrats while representing money-making opportunities for the plaintiff’s lawyers, so it’s open season on these companies.

Never mind that the income these folks earn is more than the zero income they’ll earn after they’re priced out of jobs by unions; the startups that gave them their gigs have been closed down by plaintiffs’ lawyers looking for a fee, eliminating those gigs, and Democrats’ labor rules have made it the more difficult for startups to start.

None of that matters. All that matters is union and Democrat power and those fees.

Some Duplicity in Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that a while ago, in 2014, the GAO ran some tests of Obamacare: they set up 12 fake persons with invalid Social Security numbers, fake citizenship, and/or false income claims. Eleven of these got coverage, several of them got subsidies, many of them got renewed for this year, and some of the renewals got increased subsidies.

…officials running Obamacare told the GAO they possess “limited ability to respond to attempts at fraud….”

Worse, these guys added in wide-eyed innocence

that measures to ensure program integrity would undermine “consumers’ ability to ‘effectively and efficiently’ select Marketplace [Obamacare] coverage.”

It’s like voter ID: if we protect the sanctity of an American’s vote, the Democrats’ favorite demographic—the frauds—won’t be able to vote Democratic.