Category Archives: regulation

The Judicial Branch and the Law

Posted on by
Reply

In a couple of weeks, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving Federal subsidies to health coverage purchasers who bought their plans on ObamaMart instead of State exchanges. The Obamacare law limits those subsidies to purchasers via State exchanges argue the plaintiffs; the government demurs.

Some ACA critics fear the Supreme Court may hesitate to block the current subsidies because of a lack of confidence in the legislative branch in general.

Against that backdrop, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said

The current Congress is not equipped really to do anything[.]

That claim is the pseudo-logic President Barack Obama uses to justify his Executive Orders and “executive actions” that deliberately bypass Congress, and unconstitutionally so.

Justice Ginsburg, and others of like mind on the Supreme Court, may be entirely right on Congress’ ability—or willingness—to act. However, she, and they, would do well to remember that the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold does not authorize the Court to legislate in place of, or in addition to, Congress.

Justice Ginsburg and her fellows would do well to remember that the judiciary’s task is first to determine whether a law comports with the Constitution as the Constitution is written, and if it’s legitimate, to apply that law as that law is written.

Full stop.

Democrats and Those Pesky Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Three senior House members told The Associated Press that they plan to strongly urge the administration to grant a special sign-up opportunity for uninsured taxpayers who will be facing fines under the law for the first time this year.

The three are Michigan’s Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, and Lloyd Doggett of Texas. All worked to help steer Obama’s law through rancorous congressional debates from 2009-2010.

Because, voters. Because, law? That’s too inconvenient; just ignore it.

The Obamacare law—which Democrats have been trying to stifle debate about by insisting “It’s the law of the land”—specified the signup period. If these worthies want to change the signup period, they need to change the law—which they helped write this way—not ignore it.

The lawmakers say they are concerned that many of their constituents will find out about the penalties after it’s already too late for them to sign up for coverage, since open enrollment ended Sunday.

Wait, what? These Democrats haven’t been talking to their constituents about their responsibilities under these Democrats’ law? Not since 2010? At all!?

Oh, yeah. Voters.

A Fatal Flaw

Posted on by
Reply

In a piece for Wired, FCC MFWIC Tom Wheeler offered rationalization for his decision to dismantle the Internet. He opened his apologia with this remarkable claim:

This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles….

That’s the problem. Regulatory “principles” proceed from the assumption that government regulation is a universal and primary good.

Of course, that’s precisely backward—and backwards. A free market is almost universally self-regulating: make a bad product, people find out and stop buying—the producer goes out of business. Lie about a product, people find out and stop buying—even if the product itself might be sound—and the producer or seller goes out of business. And so on.

Almost universally: yes, there are conditions within which government regulation is warranted. But such regulation must proceed from the fundamental assumption that regulating is bad or unnecessary, and the regulation proposer must prove—not merely justify—why this proposed regulation is necessary (not merely useful in some sense).

Wheeler’s regulatory travesty must be halted. Even its mere suggestion is sound reason for Congress to act—perhaps unsuccessfully until 2017 with a Republican President, too—now to reign in, to severely circumscribe, the regulatory authority of all Departments and Agencies.

Academic Apostasy

Posted on by
Reply

What are our post-high school academic institutions coming to?

Dartmouth Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Mike Mastanduno said this:

More than I’d like to, I hear this: “It’s really hard to teach on Thursday morning because of what the students do on Wednesday night.” I hear that from faculty. What I never hear, and what I’d love to start hearing from students is, “It’s really hard to do what we want to do on Wednesday night because of what’s expected of us on Thursday morning.”

Dude—party, man. It’s what we’re here for.

Maybe things might change a little, though. Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon is looking to make changes.

He wants to reorganize the dormitory system into “house communities” in which students will tend to reside for their college career instead of moving around frequently. Shockingly, they will

have dedicated space for study and social interaction….

Say, what!? Dude, chill.

But wait—there’s more:

I am asking the faculty to consider a number of ways to increase the rigor of our curriculum—from curbing grade inflation, limiting lay ups, to not cancelling classes around celebration weekends, to earlier start times for classes on Tuesday and Thursday mornings.

Dude, hold up—don’t listen to that Dean….

 

Dude….

Driving Death Rate

Posted on by
Reply

It fell sharply in 2012, the latest year for which data were studied by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Assuming Fox News accurately summarized the study, I have a couple questions.

Improved vehicle designs and safety technology have a lot to do with the reduced risk, but a weak economy that led to reductions in driving may also have played a role….

Well, yeah. This is why I’d rather see the death rates per (million? hundred thousand?) miles driven. The Edsel in its half-day might have had a very low rate per million sold, too. Or a sky high rate. Four of the cars the Institute identified as having no deaths in 2012 were luxury cars—which won’t have as many miles driven per model as a middle-class car like Honda Accord or a Ford Taurus.

Then there’s what the Institute used for their baseline: 48 deaths over the 2008-2009 time frame. I have to wonder, given events in the latter half of 2008 and extending through 2009, how many of those 48 were due to design and technology and how many were due to driving while distracted by distraught and/or suicide by driving accident. One such death would skew the results by two per centage points.