Tag Archives: regulation

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

This is from a Food and Drug Administration warning letter to the owners of Nashoba Brook Bakery, via The Wall Street Journal:

Your…products are misbranded…because…the labels fail to bear a complete list of all the ingredients by common or usual name….

Your Nashoba Granola label lists ingredient “Love.” Ingredients required to be declared on the label or labeling of food must be listed by their common or usual name…. “Love” is not a common or usual name of an ingredient, and is considered to be intervening material because it is not part of the common or usual name of the ingredient.

The utter idiocy of this bureaucratic foolishness wants no further comment beyond a simple question: why are the letter writer and his supervisor still on the taxpayer’s payroll?  There are other complaints identified in the letter that would appear to be serious, but they’re deprecated, and the letter cannot be taken seriously with this kind of nonsense included.

Another Example

Posted on by
Reply

…of government regulatory failure.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which regulates, among other financial institutions, brokerage houses, has its own investment portfolio.  FINRA charges fees from those it regulates for their privilege of being regulated.  And

In years when FINRA’s fee revenue exceeds forecasts and investment gains are strong, the regulator can rebate fees paid by firms it regulates.

Investment gains are strong.  However, FINRA turns out to be a crappy investor, getting just two-thirds of the return since 2004, when the regulatory body’s investment portfolio was created, that a simple-minded standard portfolio mix of 50% each of bonds and stocks would have gotten in the same period.  Its return shortfall, 3.4% vs that standard portfolio’s 6%, is a real money shortfall: $440 million for a portfolio of $1.6 billion.

And that has real impact on the regulatees that are so privileged: not only have there been no fee rebates since 2014, FINRA is raising fees on its regulatees to make up for its failure as an investor.

Go figure.

What’s Their Limiting Principle?

Posted on by
Reply

Progressives, as The Wall Street Journal puts it,

believe that every human problem can be solved with a policy tweak. A ban here, a background check there, and, voila, no more mass shootings.

But what’s their limiting principle?  What level of gun control would satisfy them?  What fundamental concept would make them believe they’ve gone far enough with their tweaks, checks, bans on an American citizen’s access to the means of defending himself and his family?  Besides their empty rhetoric of “I wouldn’t do that, I wouldn’t take all your guns away…,” I mean.

Some statistics would seem to give the lie to the Progressive-Democrats’ claims both about the ubiquitousness of gun violence and the purpose of these persons’ desired “controls.”

[A] 2015 Congressional Research Service report found that from 1999 to 2013 assault rifles were used in 27% of public mass shootings. The Virginia Tech shooter in 2007 killed 32 people with two handguns. FBI statistics show that of 15,070 homicides in 2016, 374 people or 3% were killed with rifles. Some 656 homicides were committed with “personal weapons” (hands, fists, feet) and 1,604 with knives.

Guns just aren’t that important to the violence humans commit against each other.  This, in turn, gives that lie to Progressive-Democrats’ claimed goals of merely wanting to “control” our firearms; our use of them is not out of control.

The Left, the Progressive-Democrats, don’t have a limiting principle.  Their tweaks, checks, bans are only first steps.  Their purpose throughout this “debate” is to disarm us completely, so that Government—one of the entities the 2nd Amendment seeks to enable us to defend ourselves against—will have the only guns.

Now, why might that be, exactly?

And this from a different angle on the Left’s desire to disarm us, from Larry O’Connor at Mediaite:

The US government is systemically racist and, through its inaction, seems willing to allow innocent, black citizens to be murdered by its police force. Furthermore, the judicial system is often rigged to protect the evil, racist officers by never punishing them for those murders. Additionally, the very same government is now in the hands of a fascist, incompetent criminal who, not only hates blacks and Latinos so much that he is willing to let the latter die of starvation and thirst [in Puerto Rico] rather than deliver humanitarian aid to them, but also calls the former [NFL player kneelers] “Sons of bitches” for protesting the racist country he oversees….

…if I really thought this country was so evil and so racist…I certainly wouldn’t want that evil, fascist, incompetent, and racist government to determine who could and could not arm themselves.

Why would a thinking American want a Government so evil to have the only guns?

The position on gun control of the Left generally and of the Progressive-Democratic Party in particular not only has no limiting principle, it makes no sense within itself.

 

h/t Grim’s Hall for the Mediaite link.

The Not Good Enough Legacy

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some stats regarding Obamacare’s impact on our poor, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.

More than one in three of taxed [via the individual mandate penalty] households earned less than $25,000, which is roughly the federal poverty line for a family of four.

And

More than 75% of penalized households made less than $50,000 and nine in 10 earned less than $75,000.

And

Fewer families paid the tax in 2015 than in 2014, yet government revenues increased to more than $3 billion from about $1.7 billion, as the financial punishment for lacking coverage increased.

Never mind that these honest Americans can’t afford what Obamacare has on offer, they still have to pay the tax.  Never mind that what is on offer is so bad they won’t buy it; they’d rather pay a tax they can ill afford.

This is what Senator John McCain (R, AZ) has said he prefers to Graham-Cassidy, never minding that the Arizona governor (for whom McCain claims great admiration) has strongly endorsed the bill.  This is what Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) has said is better than a bill that repeals much of the funding for Obamacare and sends it instead to the States so they can set up their own health insurance/health coverage plan markets—including State-level Obamacare, if that’s their preference—never minding that States’ Rights has been part of his mantra since his first Senate election campaign.  This is what Senator Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) seems to want to preserve over Graham-Cassidy‘s elimination of her State’s exploding premiums and imploding plan provider participation.  This is what Senator Susan Collins seems to want to preserve, never minding Maine’s governor endorsement of the bill.

The WSJ pointed out that

…the point of this coercion was to substitute the government’s political preferences for individual judgment….

Just as these four Senators are substituting their own political preferences for the individual judgments of their constituents—whom the four are betraying with their support for Obamacare over Graham-Cassidy.

Remember this for the coming primary election season.

Some Thoughts on Graham-Cassidy

Posted on by
Reply

These are…triggered…by Thursday’s Wall Street Journal piece on how the Graham-Cassidy Plan Would Change Health Coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office has said that, without a rule requiring insurers to charge all customers comparable premiums, health plans could become prohibitively expensive for some people with pre-existing conditions.

The plans wouldn’t be insurance plans, either, since the premiums wouldn’t have anything to do with the risk being transferred.  The plans would be welfare plans.

Separately, states could also waive a requirement that insurers provide a set of medical benefits like mental-health services and prescription-drug coverage. If those benefits aren’t required, people with costly medical conditions could have difficulty buying insurance with the relevant services or medications.

Certainly a possibility. However, that’s a matter between a State’s citizens and their State government. The Federal government has no legitimate role to play in this.

The bill seeks to distribute funding roughly equally among states. But under the ACA, 31 states expanded Medicaid, and some states had considerably higher enrollment in subsidized plans. Because that funding would go away to be replaced by block grants, some states would see a net funding gain and others would see a loss.

This is the only problem I have with Graham-Cassidy, albeit not for the reasons the WSJ cites others as having.  With roughly equal funding across States, low-population States will get more per capita money than those with larger population without regard to the relative health of the populations.  The block grants should be sized to each State’s population of citizens and legal immigrants, so that the per capita funding is roughly equal, not the per-State funding.  The biggest “losers” would still tend to be States with Progressive-Democratic Party-led governments, but these also are the States with the most profligately wasteful spending, and on a host of programs, not only on Medicaid.  There’s no valid reasons other States should be forced to continue to subsidize these wastrels with continued taxpayer dollar redistributions.

The bill rescinds the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, which for the first time extended coverage to childless, low-income adults. So states couldn’t use their block grants to cover these low-income adults under Medicaid.

Money is fungible, though, and Medicaid is a State program, even if it is heavily subsidized with Federal (i.e., your and my tax) dollars.  If a State thinks covering childless, low-income adults, et al., is a good idea, it certainly can reallocate monies from other spending to its Medicaid program for the purpose.

[T]he bill also for the first time places funding caps on traditional Medicaid and shrinks spending on the program significantly over time. Analysts say the reduced federal spending could blow a hole in state budgets….

It’s a start.  The Federal block grants should be put on an annually declining basis so that over 10 years (say), the grants disappear, and the States would be free to—and responsible for—designing and funding their own Medicaid programs without Federal strings, without subsidization with the tax dollars of other States’ citizens, and without having to send their own citizens’ tax dollars to subsidize other States.

Too, the analysts are wrong on this, and they demonstrate a breathtaking lack of understanding of responsibility.  Reducing Federal transfers to the States won’t blow a hole in any State budget.  The only thing capable of blowing holes in State budgets are those States’ governments via their spending decisions.  State governments just will have to spend their own citizens’ money, with less OPM coming in.

Unfortunately, guys like Senators John McCain (R, AZ) and Rand Paul (R, KY) prefer Obamacare to even this much compromise-y progress, and so they’re going to betray their constituents by voting to preserve Obamacare rather than replace it with Graham-Cassidy.  Their reasons for preferring Obamacare?  In McCain’s case, it’s all about ego and his precious Maverick status.  Nothing will ever be pure enough to suit Paul, so he’ll just vote “No,” no matter what.

If this bill fails, that’ll be these two Senators’ legacy–voting to keep Obamacare intact.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) should bring the bill to a vote this week regardless of his vote count.  He needs to put those Republicans who prefer Obamacare on the voting record for the coming Republican primaries.