Tag Archives: regulation

Off Ramps

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the cool, new buzz phrase. Congressmen John Kline (R, MN), Paul Ryan (R, WI), and Fred Upton (R, MI), Chairmen of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Ways and Means Committee, and Energy and Commerce Committee, respectively, used it Monday in The Wall Street Journal to propose alternatives to Obamacare should the Supreme Court strike down Federal subsidies related to health care coverage plans bought through ObamaMart rather than through the State exchanges that the Obamacare law requires for Federal subsidy eligibility.

In the main, their alternatives are good ones, but there are a couple points with which I wholeheartedly disagree, and it’s disappointing that three men who know better would propose them.

We would allow parents to keep children on their plan until age 26.

That’s fine, but 26-year-olds aren’t children; they’re grown adults. They stopped being children at 18, or 20, or 21 depending on the jurisdiction. They stopped being children when they became eligible to make their own binding decisions on legal documents. Retaining sons and daughters on parents’ plans should be a matter of negotiation between the plan seller and buyer; government shouldn’t be involved in magnanimously granting permission—which carries with it the authority to rescind that permission later.

We would prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.

This is especially disappointing. This, too, should be a matter of negotiation between the involved parties. Mandating an expense to the company, which this plainly does, forces a cost on the customer. There is a greater cost for paying out over an indefinite lifetime than there is for paying out over a known and fixed interval. Denying the company the option to offer either forces the company to pass on the greater cost to the customer, whether the customer wants that much coverage or not. It’s also an unacceptable denial of market choice to the customer.

[W]e would offer those in the affected states a tax credit to buy insurance.

This comes from the false premise that government should be the default source of welfare, and not the last resort. From that, it jumps the gun: the magnitude of the need is not at all established, especially given the initial fluid market environment that would be created were the competition across state lines part discussed in their op-ed actually passed. Only after private sources of aid have been exhausted, in that stabilized environment of lower basic cost for health plans, should government aid become available. (It’ll also be interesting to see how these guys propose to pay for these tax credits, but perhaps that’s for a later op-ed.)

A Conservative’s View of American Domestic Policy: Some Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

It’s out.

This is the first of a pair of publications on American policy; the other is concerned with National Policy, which consists of foreign and defense policy.

Domestic Policy both is necessary in its own right and must come before National Policy since a sound policy domestically is absolutely required both for the health of the nation within our borders and to facilitate—indeed, to enable—any form of outward-facing policy at the national level.

Domestic Policy is a combination of social and economic policies. Social Policy consists of these things: the concept of the American nation; American citizenship; the role of faith in our society; the role of immigration and its importance to our society; the importance of consensus; and the role of education.

Economic Policy consists of these things: the nature of a free market and its condition as the most moral system and the one most conducive to generating prosperity for all (even though there always will be some more or less prosperous than others), the role of the Federal government in protecting and enhancing our economy, and the role of Federal regulation in facilitating our economy.

Of course, these two major divisions of Domestic Policy are not truly separate from each other any more than biology, chemistry, and physics are separate from each other within science. Just as we divide scientific disciplines from each other to facilitate inquiry and discussion, I’m separating domestic policy into these divisions to facilitate a similar inquiry and discussion—while remaining fully aware and making occasional use of their very large areas of overlap.

The book is available in eBook form from amazon.com () and

Rule By Law—Spying Edition

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China is on the verge of enacting a law that would make legal corporate spying by the PRC government. Of course, the Chinese are couching this as a wholly innocent effort at countering terrorism.

The draft law requires both foreign and domestic telecommunications and Internet service providers to create backdoors in their systems to give Chinese authorities surveillance access, hand over copies of their encryption codes and assist government agencies with decryption when asked, among other provisions. Also, companies would be required to store Chinese users’ data on servers in the Chinese mainland; otherwise, they wouldn’t be allowed to operate in the country.

This sort of thing really should make it impossible for any honest company to do business in the PRC or with a PRC business. They should accept the Chinese offer of not “be[ing] allowed to operate in the country.” The financial gains to be had on the mainland—particularly with the money repatriation restrictions the PRC already has in place—can’t be worth this surrender of control over a legitimate business to the PRC government.

“Missing” IRS Emails

Posted on by
Reply

Investigators said Thursday they have recovered 32,000 emails in backup tapes related to the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative organizations.

But they don’t know how many of them are new, and told a congressional oversight committee that IRS employees had not asked computer technicians for the tapes, as directed by a subpoena from House oversight and other investigating committees.

That admission was in direct contradiction to earlier testimony of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

Of particular interest, other than Koskinen’s apparent lie, is that

The emails were to and from Lois Lerner, who used to head the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status.

IRS Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus said, according to Fox News‘ paraphrase at the above link, that

investigators recovered thousands of emails from old computer tapes used to back up the agency’s email system, though he said he believed some tapes had been erased.

It’s early in this batch’s status, though; Camus also said

We recovered quite a number of emails, but until we compare those to what’s already been produced we don’t know if they’re new emails[.]

But it’s not a scandal in any event. This is simply the sort of behavior guys like David Axelrod and Barack Obama think is entirely appropriate.

Non-neutrality of Net “Neutrality”

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Communications Commission set aside two decades of laissez-faire policy Thursday to assert broad authority over the Internet, voting to regulate broadband providers as public utilities and overruling laws in two states that made it harder for cities to offer their own Web service.

And

The commission pledged to use a light touch….

The FCC’s “rule” violates express Congressional instruction not to do this. With the FCC’s lawlessness made manifest, how can their pledge be believed?