Category Archives: regulation

A Thought on Gerrymandering Congressional Districts

Posted on by
Reply

This is triggered by a summary of a case that’s before the Supreme Court in the just-started Court session.

Alabama redistricting: Democrats and black lawmakers contend that Republican leaders in Alabama drew a new legislative map that illegally packed black voters into too few voting districts to limit minority political power. Republicans say they complied with the law by keeping the same number of districts in which black voters could elect candidates of their choice.

This question should be irrelevant today.

Instead, we should have square districts, except where the district abuts a state border (perhaps, also, where a small part of a district would be on the other side of a natural barrier, like a river, with no nearby path across/around the barrier). Political districts should be drawn without regard to the population encompassed.

There should be no special treatment for one group of Americans over another; this accomplishes nothing beyond harming the groups denied the same special treatment. There should be no differential treatment under law for one group of Americans compared to any other; this accomplishes nothing beyond harming the groups denied that same differential treatment. The 14th Amendment makes this clear, as if it’s not morally so, already.

Especially, there should be no special political district shapes carved to accommodate, or to disaccommodate, one group or another. We each have one vote, of equal value to each other vote, regardless of our skin color or ethnicity. We are, after all, each equal to another before God and law. We are, after all, each of us Americans; in this this political, legal, religious context, there are no relevant distinctions among us. Full stop.

As a Supreme Court Justice already has recognized, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

Interstate Commerce and Chicken Eggs

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a California law that requires all eggs sold in the Golden State to come from hens housed in roomier cages.

State Attorneys General from Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Alabama had sued to block implementation of the law on the grounds that it unconstitutionally interfered with interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.

They said farmers would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars overhauling farms to ensure they would have access to the California market….

US District Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California disagreed.

The only citizens who may have to spend $120 million to comply with California’s legislation are the egg farmers who intend to participate in California’s egg market[.]

Intend to participate. Not required to participate. That raises a question in my pea brain: which will cost those farmers more, modifying their enclosures or not selling their eggs in California?

Security and Ebola

Posted on by
2

The head of the CDC said Saturday that imposing a travel ban between the US and West African countries dealing with the Ebola virus could worsen the outbreak that has killed over 3,000 people in five countries.

“Though we might wish we can seal ourselves off from the world, there are Americans who have the right of return and many other people that have the right to enter this country,” Dr Thomas Frieden told a press conference. “We’re not going to be able to get to zero risk no matter what we do unless we control the outbreak in West Africa.”

This is carefully, cynically mendacious. “Americans who have the right of return” from western Africa are few, and they’re easily controlled at the point of departure until they can be shown to be Ebola-free. Those infected can be brought back under suitable controls, as has already been demonstrated.

Moreover, there are not at all very “many other people that have the right to enter this country;” that’s the point of border control: no nation has an obligation to let any non-citizen enter, except as that nation sees fit.

Frieden compounded his…error…with this:

We really need to be clear that we don’t inadvertently increase the risk to people in this country by making it harder for us to respond to the needs in those countries by making it harder to get assistance in and therefore those outbreaks would become worse, go on longer, and paradoxically, something that we did to try and protect ourselves might actually increase our risk.

This is more nonsense. A travel ban would be on travel from western Africa, not to it. Even were such a ban to include to western Africa, exceptions for humanitarian purposes are easily defined.

We don’t get to zero risk by restricting travel from enemy nations during time of war, either, until we control and terminate on our terms the war at its source; however, we routinely and effectively reduce risk by such restrictions. So it is here. Ebola isn’t a shooting war, but it is a war against a virus that has devastating effect wherever it invades. Travel restrictions would significantly reduce risk.

Another VA Problem

Posted on by
1

This one, though, isn’t primarily the Veterans Affair’s doing.

Veterans at the Shreveport, LA, Veterans Administration hospital have been going without toothbrushes, toothpaste, pajamas, sheets, and blankets while department officials spend money on new Canadian-made furniture, televisions to run public service announcements and solar panels….

Some specifics:

According to the VA, the department spent $74,412 on 24 flat screen TVs for “patient/employee information”—one 50 inches wide and the others 42 inches. The furniture cost $134,082, and the solar project was approximately $3 million.

This is shameful, but this falls on Congress. Under Federal funding rules, capital equipment—the TVs, solar, etc—fall into one funding category, and supplies—toothbrushes and paste, blankets, etc—fall into a separate category. Under those same rules, the VA (and any other agency whose funding falls into different categories) cannot take funds from, say, capital equipment, and spend it on, say, supplies. It gets even more bureaucratic than that. Agencies can’t reallocate capital expenses from one capital item to another: the VA can’t, for instance, take some of those $3 million from solar and buy more TVs with it. Only Congress can authorize such reallocations.

No, Congress must answer for this misallocation. That it’s what the VA asked for in its budget request may be true, but Congress—that collection of our directly elected representatives—isn’t supposed to be a rubber stamp for every request for money that wanders by. It’s our money Congress is allocating, not Congress’ and not the VA’s.

It’s true enough that the VA could have—should have—gone to Congress and asked for a reallocation on recognition of the supply funding shortfall. That it seems not to have is an internal VA problem that supports my argument for disbanding the VA and using the budget to fund vouchers sent directly to our veterans.

There are other problems described at the Watchdog.org link above that are entirely within the VA’s ability to correct, but this one is not.

Obamacare and Health Care

Posted on by
Reply

As Dr Scott Atlas, of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, in a recent The Wall Street Journal op-ed noted,

  • Private company medical innovation R&D spending in the US the last three years averaged 2.1%, down from an average of 6% over the previous fifteen
  • Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, India, and the EU had greater R&D spending growth in the same period
  • The PRC had a growth rate of 22%

Certainly, those other polities, the EU excepted, were starting from a much smaller base, and so their growth rates will tend to be exaggerated. Certainly, too, our own historically weak economy is exacerbating the situation.

All that notwithstanding, though, this is a trend that is allowed to continue at the peril of our leadership in things medical. Obamacare, with its removal of the insurance aspect of health plans, actively hurts this. What plan can pay for the latest and best drugs or devices, and so drive innovation—or even those drugs or devices that are merely near the cutting edge, or that are middle tier—when those plans aren’t allowed to recoup their costs, except at generalized taxpayer expense?

There’s one aspect, though, that is a direct assault on medical innovation, and that’s Obamacare’s medical-device excise tax. This is a tax the takes 2.3% off the top—that is, before expenses and profit—of all medical device sales. This includes devices from heart pace makers to dialysis units to bandages sold in bulk to hospitals.

2.3% is no big deal?

  • Johnson & Johnson’s medical device and diagnostic sales were down 1.5% in the US, versus up 1.8% internationally, in the first half of 2014
  • General Electric reported that the US healthcare sales shrank by 2% in the second quarter, versus up 2% in Europe
  • Medtronic’s US sales for the 2014 fiscal year were up 1.7%, versus 5.9% internationally
  • Baxter reported US sales of medical products were down 15% for the quarter ended June 2014, versus up 8% globally
  • Fresenius’ US sales of dialysis products were down 1.2% in the first half of 2014, versus up 0.6% internationally

And (via the first link above)

Boston Scientific, Stryker, and Cook Medical have announced job cuts and plans to open new centers for R&D, manufacturing, and clinical trials overseas.

And so on.

Many attempts have been made to repeal this pernicious tax, the latest this past summer. The Democrat-controlled Senate refused to consider it. Again.