Mary Jane
Why now?
Justice Department Submits Proposed Regulation to Reschedule Marijuana
We’ll see what kind of comments the DoJ receives on the relaxation of marijuana controls.
“The rescheduling of a controlled substance follows a formal rulemaking procedure that requires notice to the public, and an opportunity for comment and an administrative hearing. This proposal starts the process, where the Drug Enforcement Administration will gather and consider information and views submitted by the public, in order to make a determination about the appropriate schedule. During that process, and until a final rule is published, marijuana remains a schedule I controlled substance.”
Confronting A Surge In Costly Federal Rules
The scale of federal rulemaking and the acceleration of its pace is stunning. And this is with a change to the reporting threshold.
The author speculates that the Biden Administration could break the 100,000 pages per year record.
Given the gamesmanship around the Congressional Review Act, the author argues in favor of legislation in the next Congress that will require Congressional approval of significant new rules.
“As of Monday, May 13, there have been 1,148 rules and regulations finalized among the 41,830 pages published to date in the 2024 Federal Register.
“Page tallies of over 800 per day have suddenly become routine. Last week’s 4,225 pages represented nearly double 2024’s weekly pace so far.
“At any given moment several thousand rules and regulations populate the production process. There are several flavors of “significant” rules, the costliest subset of which consists of rules the Biden administration deems “Section 3(f)1 Significant” (S3F1).”
Berlin museum pokes fun at German bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is something that grows from acute crisis, but it is unaffordable when the malaise is deep set.
“Alsleben said that was reason enough for 58% of companies to decide against investing in Germany, accusing German politics and bureaucracy of killing innovation and entrepreneurial spirit.”
New Rules to Overhaul Electric Grids Could Boost Wind and Solar Power
The rule here purports to address grid operators’ putative irrationality. By this logic, operators are either unable or unwilling to plan for the longer term, so the country has insufficient transmission infrastructure.
Or it could be the case that the distortions imposed upon them make it rational for them to behave this way.
Who benefits from this rule? It is a gift to Big Green paid for by consumers.
This makes sense in the same way that you might try to force a child to eat its vegetables.
“The new federal rule, which was two years in the making, requires grid operators around the country to identify needs 20 years into the future, taking into account factors like changes in the energy mix, the growing number of states that require wind and solar power and the risks of extreme weather.
“Grid planners would have to evaluate the benefits of new transmission lines, such as whether they would lower electricity costs or reduce the risk of blackouts, and develop methods for splitting the costs of those lines among customers and businesses.”
Overturning Chevron Will Not Transform Congress
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Would overturning Chevron inspire Congress to reassert its primacy or will they become productive with continued deference and less judicial oversight?
Would administrative volatility increase or decrease?
The author performs data analysis to conclude that “replacing Chevron deference with anything resembling independent judicial review could result in measurable decreases in congressional productivity.” He then argues that the Court is ill-equipped to handle such questions.
“We can do better than folk wisdom and anecdotal evidence. In a recent working paper, I tested the claim that Chevron encourages legislative stagnation. The results suggest that the theory is not only wrong, but backward. If what we want is legislative productivity, the evidence suggests we are better off with some form of deference than we are with judges exercising independent, or de novo, review of statutory questions.”
Janet Yellen’s New Too-Big-To-Fail Firms
Government needs to make regulations to fix the problems created by prior regulations. Also, government is now more exposed than they were before, so the problem is more pressing.
This comes at the same time that the federal government is talking about guaranteeing second mortgages (which would be issued by the companies the government says pose a systemic risk).
“Stricter bank capital rules made mortgage servicing less attractive. The feds and state Attorneys General dunned big banks billions of dollars for allegedly slipshod mortgage servicing and underwriting. Many banks decided that making and managing home loans isn’t worth the cost. Non-banks took their place. Mortgage companies are regulated by the states and don’t have to comply with the Federal Reserve’s regulation. Most draw on bank credit lines or issue debt to finance loans, which are securitized and sold to investors.
“FSOC says many mortgage companies are highly levered and could experience stress if banks reprice their credit or cut them off. Why might this happen? Rising interest rates and stricter bank capital standards such as those recently proposed by the Fed.”
US airlines sue Biden administration, want upfront pricing regulation blocked
It’s a bold move to sue your regulator. Let’s see how it works out for them, Cotton. Airlines already disclose much of these fees. It’s a competitive marketplace. If consumers were so bothered by what may or may not be opaque fees, then they go somewhere else. Other airlines would start more fulsome disclosure as a competitive tactic.
While we’re at it, taxes should be more transparent, too.
‘Several U.S. airlines are joining forces in a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration's recent rule that would require carriers to display the full cost of a flight — including crucial add-on charges — upfront.
‘The U.S. Department of Transportation exceeded its authority in issuing the regulation late last month, argued American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and JetBlue. Airlines for America, the U.S. airline industry's lobbying group, also joined. Notably, Southwest Airlines declined to join the suit.
‘The lawsuit against the DOT, filed Friday in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, calls for a judge to set aside the rule. Airlines describe the rule as "arbitrary," an "abuse of discretion" and "otherwise contrary to law."’
Senators Propose $32 Billion in Annual A.I. Spending but Defer Regulation
This is encouraging. Here’s hoping the rest of the world regulates themselves into a corner.
‘“It’s very hard to do regulations because A.I. is changing too quickly,” Mr. Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in an interview. “We didn’t want to rush this.”’
Cumulative "economically significant rules" passed, by administration
Good chart showing how much more aggressive the Administration has been in initiating new rules. And this is after the re-definition of “economically significant.”
“By the numbers: Federal agencies passed 66 economically significant rules in April — more than any month since at least the Reagan administration, according to a Regulatory Studies Center analysis.”
Schumer’s slow-walk on AI ‘regulation’ is a nothing but a boon for Big Tech
It’s an interesting question. At what point does consulting with executives in a particular industry become inappropriate? How much influence should industry (or any third party) have over policy?
“Schumer hosted a set of secretive, closed-door insight “forums” — invite-only, featuring tech CEOs and others who are already banking big money off AI in a Wild West environment. These forums were unprecedented in nature: he locked out reporters, the public, and numerous experts who have contributed to the large evidence base about the impacts of AI that need to be addressed by regulation.
The most high-profile of these forums were held in September, where Schumer invited an exclusive set of the most influential tech CEOs, including Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman and Elon Musk. The CEOs delivered scripted remarks, while senators were barred from asking questions, leading to bipartisan frustration.”
A new measure shows why some US policymakers have more decision-making freedom than others
Researchers quantify administrative discretion and show tremendous variation across states in the US. Interestingly, as appointment becomes disconnected from elected officials, administrative discretion increases.
“Policy wonks and scholars of bureaucracy understand that government agency leaders make these impactful decisions based on a subjective understanding of the discretion available to them. Put another way, public agency discretion may be conceived of as the perceived authority in which key external political influences—the elected executives, legislators, and interest groups—lack a say over an agency’s major public policy decisions.”