Archive for the ‘Government Regulation’ Category

REPEALING DODD FRANK

Thursday, June 7th, 2018

 

THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Regulatory Release

May 24, 2018
The partial repeal of Dodd Frank could have gone farther, but it’s a good start.

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and President Obama signed it into law. The legislation, more than 2,000 pages long, imposed cumbersome regulations on financial institutions, which the bill’s authors took to be responsible for the 2008 financial crisis and the consequent recession. The law also established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, an advocacy agency for consumers that, to no one’s surprise, quickly turned into a Naderite anti-corporation attack dog.

Complicated laws passed in the middle of a crisis are guaranteed to make things worse in the long run, and so Dodd-Frank proved. The Democrats, who controlled both House and Senate in 2010, took the blinkered view that the financial crisis had come about exclusively thanks to the unregulated excesses of the private-sector financial industry; regulating that industry was, for them, the only rational response. The law thus deprived the market of liquidity in the middle of a recession—with predictable results.

The Democrats ignored two important points. First, the role of the federal government itself: Government-backed mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae—then as now boasting powerful allies in Congress—encouraged precisely the sort of risky and foolish loans that led directly to the housing-market collapse and attendant financial meltdown. Second, what many of the investment banks did was already illegal: “cooking the books,” to use the popular term. To that extent, it was an enforcement problem, not a regulatory one. Greater regulation of investment banks largely missed the point—though it allowed powerful Democrats in Congress to blame someone other than themselves for the crisis. (The bill’s authors, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, both had a long history of encouraging Fannie and Freddie’s worst practices.) One of the law’s further follies is that it shackled small and mid-sized banks with the same provisions despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

(more…)

Share

ARE WE IN A CIVIL WAR ?

Monday, May 28th, 2018

 


A few days ago, Jack Minzey, sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written.

Jack went to be with the Lord,  on Sunday, 8 April 2018. 

Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.  His interest in Conservative Politics was exceeded  only  by his intellectual ability.

This is the last of his works:

Civil War

How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.  That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That’s a civil war.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – SENATOR LANKFORD OF OKLAHOMA DISCUSSES WASTE AND FRAUD IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Friday, May 18th, 2018

 

Suggestion:  Pour yourself a rather large glass of wine for its calming effects  while watching this video.  How are we ever going to get the Federal Government to reduce wasteful spending ? Perhaps electing more  representatives with business experience and term limits might help.  Nancy
C-SPAN VIDEO  – SENATOR LANKFORD OF OKLAHOMA   DISCUSSES WASTE AND FRAUD IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Share

GUN CONTROL – TAKING A SECOND LOOK

Monday, March 26th, 2018

 

The historical facts (see below)  regarding  what can  happen when  the people can no longer defend themselves against tyrannical governments should be impressed on the students who are marching in protest for more gun control.   Nancy  
 THE WASHINGTON TIMES
TAKING A SECOND LOOK
BY NATE BROGIN   March 4, 2018

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  

Guns have a long history of debate in both the U.S. and elsewhere and remain a flash point in the minds of many maybe because they are the image of a basic weapon of war and personal defense. Guns have been the employed tool of some, yet the lack of guns exacerbates exposure to violence.

In 2014 Australia, all “registered” guns were outlawed and turned in. In 2015, Ed Chenel, a police chief in that country, confirmed that criminal armed robbery increased by a whopping 40 percent. Homicides in the State of Victoria alone are up 300 percent. You know why.

Acting on mostly the emotions of blame, history memorialized:

In 1938, Germany established gun control. By 1945, 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

In 1929, the USSR established gun control. By 1953, about 20 million dissidents were terminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, were neutralized.

In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political voices of a different opinion, were eliminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control. By 1979, 300,000 Christians, became unaccounted for.

Accept this fact of reality — armed people will never willingly load themselves into railroad boxcars.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

Share

VIDEO: MUSLIMS RIOT IN LONDON’S SPEAKERS CORNER TO SHUT DOWN FREE SPEECH

Monday, March 19th, 2018

 

Video: Muslims riot, assault people with weapons to shut down free speech at London’s Speakers’ Corner

 

Share

HEARTS WITHOUT GOD

Saturday, March 3rd, 2018

 

I agree completely with the comments that Cathy Wright has made regarding this audio video.  Give it 15  minutes of your time  and you will be amazed at the new  information you will hear in Pastor Garrison’s   message.  Please share with your email lists and post the link on facebook.        Thanks to Cathy for sharing with us.  Nancy

Below is a link to a sermon audio about the recent events in Parkland, FL, presented by Pastor Charles Garrison, Calvary Memorial Church in Southern Pines, NC.

 

I am aware that most are so busy that invitations to listen to a man for 42 minutes will likely result in a convenient reason to skip it.  Listen for 15 minutes and you will discover reasons for continuing to the end. Make time to do this without distraction.

 

Our nation is facing a crisis. The problem is not guns. It’s hearts without God; homes without parental discipline; schools without prayer; and, courts without justice.

 

Please feel free to pass this on.

Best,

Cathy

 

www.sermonaudio.com/playpopupvideo.asp?SID=228181853299

 

 

Share

VIDEO – DANA LOESCH AT CPAC 2018

Friday, February 23rd, 2018

 

VIDEO    DANA LOESCH AT CPAC 2018 

NRA’s Loesch: I Wouldn’t Have Been Able To Exit CNN Town Hall If I Didn’t Have A Security Detail. tiny.iavian.net/lp9l
Share

DEMOCRAT COMMON SENSE ON GUN CONTROL !

Thursday, February 22nd, 2018

 

patriotpost.us/alexander/54302

PATRIOT POST

Alexander’s Column

Democrat Common Sense — A Non-Sequitur

Whenever the words “common sense” come out of a Democrat’s pie hole, caveat emptor.

By Mark Alexander · February 21, 2018   Print

“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any…” —James Madison (1788)

2018-02-19-3fe8ac0d_large.jpg

There’s a lot of Democrat chatter this week about “common-sense gun control,” their ubiquitous terminology for undermining what our Founders understood to be the First Civil Right of all people.

“To Keep and Bear Arms” is the unalienable right enumerated in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. It is thus second only to the First, but make no mistake: It guarantees the First and all others.

Frankly, whenever the words “common sense” come out of a Democrat’s pie hole, caveat emptor — all critical thinkers should vigorously challenge with prejudicial skepticism whatever follows thereafter.

In the wake of the Parkland, Florida, high school murders by a sociopathic assailant using a firearm, we cannot overlook the abject failure of federal, state and local agencies to intervene despite having been warned of the risk posed by this individual.

But it’s the response from Donald Trump versus that from Barack Obama which demonstrates the great divide between Republicans and Democrats on the causation for such violent acts.

(more…)

Share

SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE IN CANADA

Monday, January 29th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Single-Payer Health Care Isn’t Worth Waiting For

An orthopedic surgeon challenges Canada’s ban on most privately funded procedures.

January 22, 2018
  By

Sally C. Pipes   Ms. Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of “The False Promise of Single-Payer Health Care,” forthcoming from Encounter.
 
When Brian Day opened the Cambie Surgery Centre in 1996, he had a simple goal. Dr. Day, an orthopedic surgeon from Vancouver, British Columbia, wanted to provide timely, state-of-the-art medical care to Canadians who were unwilling to wait months—even years—for surgery they needed. Canada’s single-payer health-care system, known as Medicare, is notoriously sluggish. But private clinics like Cambie are prohibited from charging most patients for operations that public hospitals provide free. Dr. Day is challenging that prohibition before the provincial Supreme Court. If it rules in his favor, it could alter the future of Canadian health care.

Most Canadian hospitals are privately owned and operated but have just one paying “client”—the provincial government. The federal government in Ottawa helps fund the system, but the provinces pay directly for care. Some Canadians have other options, however. Private clinics like Cambie initially sprang up to treat members of the armed forces, Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, those covered by workers’ compensation and other protected classes exempt from the single-payer system.

People stuck on Medicare waiting lists can only dream of timely care. Last year, the median wait between referral from a general practitioner and treatment from a specialist was 21.2 weeks, or about five months—more than double the wait a quarter-century ago. Worse, the provincial governments lie about the extent of the problem. The official clock starts only when a surgeon books the patient, not when a general practitioner makes the referral. That adds months and sometimes much longer. In November an Ontario woman learned she’d have to wait 4½ years to see a neurologist.

 

Single-Payer Health Care Isn’t Worth Waiting For
PHOTO: ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES
Share

THE IRS EVADES ACCOUNTABILITY

Thursday, January 11th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The IRS Evades Accountability—and Its Excuse Is Ridiculous

It claims its rules lack a ‘significant economic impact’ because they’re ‘derived from’ statutes.

By John J. Vecchione and James Valvo     Mr. Vecchione is president and CEO of Cause of Action Institute, where Mr. Valvo is counsel and a senior policy adviser.   January 10, 2018
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  

Specifically, the White House should demand that the IRS submit all rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. It should make it known that it will delay the implementation of any new rules until the IRS conducts the requisite economic analysis. And the Senate should demand that President Trump’s nominee for IRS commissioner—who has yet to be named—publicly commit to reforming this practice. Anyone who wants to lead the IRS should promise to produce economic analyses for proposed rules and share that information with the public.

No agency has more influence over every taxpayer than the IRS. It’s time for oversight of that agency to match its unparalleled role in Americans’ lives.

 
 

Every American knows the Internal Revenue Service collects taxes and audits taxpayers. Fewer realize that the agency also issues far-reaching rules that affect the entire economy. Any agency with such vast rule-making power deserves the highest level of scrutiny and accountability. The IRS is in particular need of oversight following the scandals that have engulfed it in recent years.

Yet a new report from the Cause of Action Institute reveals that the IRS has been evading numerous oversight mechanisms, and it refuses to comply with laws requiring it to measure the economic impact of its rules.

Congress has passed several laws, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Congressional Review Act, that require agencies to report on their rules’ economic impact to lawmakers and the public. The president also conducts oversight of agency rules through the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. These good-government measures are meant to ensure unelected bureaucrats can be checked by the public.

Crucially, they are all triggered by an initial determination by the agency of whether its new rule will have a “significant economic impact.” But as our report shows, the IRS has made up a series of exemptions that allow it to avoid basic scrutiny. The agency takes the position that its rules have no economic effect because any impact is attributable to the underlying law that authorized the rule, not the agency’s decision to issue or alter the rule.

The IRS prominently used this excuse in 2016. It had proposed changes to the way it valued interests in closely held businesses for estate- and gift-tax purposes. This rule would have had a dramatic effect on thousands of small businesses and family farms and their inheritors. The affected communities reacted strongly, but the IRS still asserted the rule was only interpretive. It provided no more than the boilerplate statement that any economic effect “is derived from the operation of the statute, or its intended application, and not from the proposed regulations in this notice of proposed rule-making.”

This is pablum. Were it correct, rules from every federal agency would be exempt from oversight, since all agency rules are based in statute. If other agencies adopted this mind-set, it would gut oversight of the regulatory state by the elected branches.

The IRS did submit the rule to the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy for comment on how it would affect small businesses. That office firmly rejected the IRS claim that the rule was exempt from economic analysis. The IRS brushed aside the SBA’s argument, but the Trump Treasury Department halted this ill-advised rule.

Yet the IRS’s brazen assertion of immunity from oversight remains in place. It first bestowed the economic-impact exemption on itself in 1998, after Congress amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act expressly to cover IRS interpretive rules. The IRS Office of Chief Counsel issued a notice claiming that its interpretive rules do not have an economic impact, an outrageous assertion meant to help the agency avoid the new law. The IRS originally stated that only the “revenue impact”—the amount of money collected and transferred to the Treasury—was exempt from analysis. It has since broadened this claim to evade White House review and the Congressional Review Act. The IRS now asserts the exemption for all “effects” from its rules, including macroeconomic impacts, behavioral changes, compliance costs, and record-keeping and reporting burdens.

Criticism of the IRS position goes beyond the SBA. Members of Congress and the Government Accountability Office have also called for reform of this baseless practice. Congress and President Trump should step in to correct this dubious behavior and ensure the IRS is held accountable for its actions.

Specifically, the White House should demand that the IRS submit all rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. It should make it known that it will delay the implementation of any new rules until the IRS conducts the requisite economic analysis. And the Senate should demand that President Trump’s nominee for IRS commissioner—who has yet to be named—publicly commit to reforming this practice. Anyone who wants to lead the IRS should promise to produce economic analyses for proposed rules and share that information with the public.

No agency has more influence over every taxpayer than the IRS. It’s time for oversight of that agency to match its unparalleled role in Americans’ lives.

Share
Search All Posts
Categories