Yet Another Thought

Posted on by
2

President Donald Trump’s (R) moves against regulations regarding our showerheads, dishwashers, stoves and ranges, and other household appliances has triggered a thought in me regarding regulation and Congressional delegation.

As we all know, Congress has delegated rule-making to the Executive Branch agencies and Departments, and many of us think Congress has over-delegated. Congressmen have shown themselves loath to wholesale claw back that delegation and write their own regulations to give concrete effect to Congress’ statutes. Here’s an easier move Congress could make regarding that delegation and rule-making.

Let the agencies and Departments conduct their rule-making in the current way, with the requirement for a comment period, the regulators required to take seriously the public’s comments during that period, and the writing of the “final” rule. The added steps are these, and they are few:

1. The agency/Department is barred from implementing the rule at any time in draft form, including via “guidance” letter, before it takes formal, legal effect
2. When the agency/Department has finalized its rule, it must submit the rule to Congress for approval
3. Each house of Congress must approve the rule via floor debate and majority vote—this is the step that gives the rule legal effect, not agency/Department finalization
4. Each house of Congress must approve the rule within 10 calendar days of its submittal to Congress
5. If both houses do not approve the rule within 10 calendar days, the rule is deemed disapproved, and it cannot take effect
6. If the rule is disapproved, whether by overt disapproval or by failure to approve within 10 days, the rule and no rule similar to it can be brought up again for six years

That last rule is especially important: it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the House of Representatives three times, it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the Senate, and it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the White House and, by extension, of the leadership of those agencies and Departments.

NB: I posted the gist of this to DOGE’s Regulations.gov, which is DOGE’s call for, and Web site for receiving, suggestions for rule changes and rescission by us ordinary Americans.

Because when I got to the head of the line, they were all out of humility, so I made up for it with an extra helping of hubris.

An Alternative Question

Posted on by
Reply

A writer to The Wall Street Journal‘s Thursday’s Letters section responded to Alicia Finley’s column A Good Man for US Manufacturing Is Hard to Find, writing,

Ms Finley says “a good worker, like a good man, can be hard to find these days” and that women struggle to find “suitable mates.” Perhaps that is because they largely want men who make more than $150,000 a year as “professionals.” Why would men want to enter “blue collar” professions only to be rejected by women?

An alternative question, and a more cogent one, I claim, is this: What self-respecting man, blue- or white collar, would want a self-identified gold digger for a wife?

Because….

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal editors are at it again. Now they’re claiming to not understand what President Donald Trump (R) is doing vis-à-vis our most dangerous enemy, the People’s Republic of China.

The reality is that Mr Trump is making it up as he goes, and it would help if he had an actual strategy to deal with China in particular.

Because, since the editors don’t see it (or merely claim not to see it), it’s impossible for anyone else to be operating effectively in a highly fluid environment while remaining within an overall strategic framework.

This, too:

But it isn’t clear what Messrs Trump and Bessent [primarily Trump] want from China, and what their strategy is to achieve it.

Because, of course, it’s de rigueur in pressmen’s minds to tell our enemies what our strategies, even our tactics, are in a conflict. How else would pressmen get their clicks and eyeballs on what they choose to write about? And, no, for those of you following along at home, this is not to say that the press is our enemy, but only to say that our enemies read what the press publishes.

Even so, these editors’ blind spot when it comes to Trump’s foreign policy moves is astonishing. Almost as much so as the editors’ apparent inability to recognize that international economics/trade is almost entirely foreign policy and not very much at all economics/trade.

Yes, And?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are in a tizzy over President Donald Trump’s (R) moves to freeze or cancel altogether Federal funds and grants to universities unless and until those institutions start acting concretely and seriously against the antisemitic bigotry rampant in them. The editors are upset because those fund freezes/cancelations include funds heretofore aimed at NIH sponsored projects.

One regrettable result is that important medical research is getting scrapped.
…
Because of Columbia University’s deep research bench of neurologists, the school in 2022 took over management of the study’s government funding, which is disbursed to some two dozen other sites across the US. A Columbia lead researcher says the study’s funding is now ensnared in the fight between the university and feds over its handling of anti-Israel protests.

Columbia medical professor José Luchsinger:

It’s a pity that all the institutions across the United States, the investigators in these institutions, the staff in these institutions, and the study participants in these institutions are being held hostage to a situation that is occurring in Columbia only[.]

Indeed, it is a pity. Columbia should stop holding all that hostage, should stop namby-pambying around, and should get serious about ending the antisemitic bigotry rampant in its student and professor populations and within its management teams—and then act on that newfound seriousness and get rid of the bigots among its students and professors and university managers.

It is a pity, too, that there even is a fight between the university and feds over its handling of anti-Israel protests.

This is a cynical mischaracterization of what’s going on, and the editors should know better, even if Luchsinger pretends not to. What is there to fight about? What’s going on at the universities is not “anti-Israel protests,” it’s naked antisemitic slurs, intimidations, threats, cutoffs of others’ right to speak in favor of Jews and Israel or just to speak conservatively. Mixed in with those bare assaults (can’t call them bare-faced, the bigots cower behind masks) is overt support for Middle East terrorists and terrorism.

But the editors favor spending money on medical research, which is important when spent efficiently, over getting rid of the bigotry and terrorist support so rife in these institutions. The editors ignore the simple fact that the bigotry and terrorist support not only threaten the institution population at large, but also that very research by making those institutions unsafe for anyone.

Of Course They Are

Posted on by
Reply

Trade groups and other lobbyists are up in arms over President Donald Trump’s (R) tariff regime, and they’re looking at suing him/his administration over that.

“Lawyers” are jumping at the chance to sue.

Consumer Technology Association CEO Gary Shapiro:

Lawyers seem to be in consensus that this is illegal. There will be lawsuits.

Of course they are. Of course there will be. There are fees to be collected from those cases.

Proof to the contrary will be in how many of those lawsuits are brought by lawyers acting either pro bono or on a contingency basis, meaning the lawyer(s) collect nothing at all unless they win. Which they will not do if appellate courts rule against them.