Tag Archives: regulation

The Pseudo-Logic of the Climatistas

Posted on by
1

Fat Head has a piece about the climate by Tom Naughton (the head fat head); it’s well worth the read.

What’s interesting to me, though, is his comment in the comment stream of his post.

Penn & Teller got hundreds of people at a environmental conference to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide—including the “science” information officer.

The real problem with this is that P&T ignored the at least equally pervasive problem of hydrogen hydroxyl. This extremely dangerous chemical already is pervasive in our atmosphere, in our lakes and rivers, and in our oceans. If allowed to accumulate too much in our oceans, in particular, it’ll lead to relative desalination of those critical waters, poisoning salt water life, right down to the sea water dependent single-celled organisms that are the very foundation of Gaia’s life-bearing ecology.

Why didn’t that Science Information Officer call P&T on this danger, instead of meekly signing their limited petition? It’s for the planet, after all, and all the children who live on it.

More Government Overreach

Posted on by
Reply

This time, by the Federal Reserve Bank. As most of you already know, the Fed runs “stress tests” to determine whether financial institutions can survive an economic dislocation of the magnitude of the Panic of 2008. Among other things, if the institution fails the stress, the Fed dictates to the institution the dividends it will be allowed to pay until the conditions leading to the alleged failure are corrected.

That’s a serious overreach; it is a government entity presuming to intrude itself into a private enterprise decision, a decision that the free market is fully capable of sanctioning or accepting without Big Government involvement.

It’s worse than that, though. Fed Board of Governors member Daniel Tarullo has exposed the more massive overreach.

Even though we do not publicly release the models, we have put systems in place to ensure oversight and accountability[.]

The Fed uses non-peer reviewed, secret models to make its assessments. Because of that secretiveness, we have no way of assessing the adequacy of the Fed’s “oversight and accountability” of those models. We also have no way of assessing the accuracy—even the legitimacy—of those models.

Tarullo’s excuse?

…disclosing the models could give banks an opportunity to game them….

Because the financial institutions don’t already game the system. Like nobody ever games any system. No, of course we do. It’s what competition does. Gaming—free market competition—is innovation, prosperity production. And, yes, the instability of creative destruction, which leads to breakout innovation and prosperity production.

It’s a disingenuous excuse for a disingenuous practice. The deliberate lack of transparency of this arm of the Big Government is of a piece with the general secretiveness of this Big Government.

It’s necessary secretiveness, however. If the public knew more about these models, knew something of how they work (or fail to work), we might do more than force corrections to them. We might do away with the Fed’s interference in private business decisions altogether, and that would reduce the power of the men in Big Government.

Driver Licenses and Illegal Aliens

Posted on by
Reply

Five illegal aliens are suing Oregon over an Oregon citizen-passed (by two to one) law that denies driver licenses to illegal aliens.

This is about as cynical as it gets in the illegal immigration movement. One of the signs held by protestors supporting the suit (not visible at the link unless you play the video) insists that “driving is a privilege not a crime.” The sign is correct. What the sign holder misses, though, what the movement misses, what the suit carefully elides, is that driving also is not a right and that driving without a license is a crime. Driving is a privilege, and it’s awarded to those legally in the state in the form of a license to drive issued by the state. Being present illegally in no way confers a “right” to the privilege.

[T]he lawsuit alleges Measure 88 is unconstitutional because it “arbitrarily” denies driving privileges based on membership in a “disfavored minority group.” It alleges Oregon voters were motivated by “animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America.”

This is an example of the cynicism. There’s nothing arbitrary about the law: it targets illegal aliens. It denies access to a privilege (not to a right), not to a disfavored minority group, but to those present in Oregon illegally. Unless citizens with driver licenses suspended for this or that series of law violations also are a “disfavored minority group.” Neither does it show animus toward persons of particular nationality or “regionality.” It shows no animus at all; it only says illegal aliens aren’t entitled [sic] to the privileges of citizens and aliens present legally.

Long time readers of this blog know that I take a very loose and open view toward immigration. I just insist that immigrants enter legally and that if they choose to remain, they do so legally. Those currently present illegally need only take steps to become legal—admittedly hard to do under our current immigration system, and much easier to do were my proposals or those of some of the Republican Presidential candidates passed into law, but possible to do nonetheless.

SEC Dishonesty

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written before about the SEC’s internal administrative judge stacked deck system.

Judge Brenda Murray explained to [eight] brokers that the commissioners who run the SEC and approve all the civil charges filed by the agency don’t want its judges second-guessing them.

“So for me to say I am wiping it out,” Ms Murray said at the [motion to dismiss] hearing last year, “it looks like I am saying to these presidential appointee commissioners, I am reversing you. And they don’t like that.”

It doesn’t get any more blatant than that.

And yet, there’s this:

In another glimpse inside the SEC’s court, [Judge Cameron] Elliot told the defendants during settlement discussions on a case they should be aware he had never ruled against the agency’s enforcement division, said a person who was there. The judge said the defendants might therefore want to do a deal with the agency rather than fight their case at a hearing before him[.]

No extortion here. Mm, mm.

Whether this is dishonesty or rank cowardice isn’t material here. What is material is that these performances by SEC administrative judges are, by themselves, reason to do away with the SEC’s administrative judge system altogether and refer cases the SEC brings to Federal—or State—courts, where the defendants can get an actual fair trial.

These sham performances also should prompt a Congressional review of all administrative judge systems, Federal government wide, with a requirement that each entity having such a system prove it needs it and that the Federal and State court systems cannot handle the cases.

Trust is a Two-Way Street

Posted on by
Reply

Of necessity, trust must flow both ways. If one does not trust another, the other cannot rely on the one even to behave in a predictable manner toward that other, much less be trustworthy in turn.

The IRS has begun pushing 501(c)(3) nonprofits—the sort of nonprofits that the IRS has been caught targeting punitively conservative versions of—to give up the social security numbers of their donors.

Under the proposed rule, the IRS would create an optional filing for 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Those participating would, as part of their yearly report, turn over the Social Security numbers of any donors who give $250 or more to a charity in a given year.

The IRS’ claimed rationale for this is to simplify the ability of donors to claim the deductions on their tax returns by allowing the IRS to “verify” donors’ claims on their returns.

No. Since the IRS cannot be trusted by American taxpayers, it’s in no position to worry about the trustworthiness of an American taxpayer. There is no legitimate rationale for this “voluntary” reporting.

Further, for those who think this “optional” form of reporting will remain voluntary, I may know of some beachfront property north of Santa Fe in which you might also be interested.