The Peabody
Some lame ducks are more energetic than others.
The Last-Minute Push from the Lamest of Lame Ducks
All this last-minute rulemaking reminds me of the image in the movie Argo of the staffers in the US Embassy in Tehran frantically trying to shred and burn as many documents as possible before the Embassy fell.
As I recall, the Iranian regime put many of those documents back together. It just took some time.
‘Now, we are 17 days away from the start of Donald Trump’s second term, and Biden — or more accurately, the team around our mumbling, stumbling octogenarian president — is trying to push through a difficult-to-rescind ban on new oil and gas drilling in large sections of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, enacted last-minute changes to the H-1B and H-2 visa programs to increase the number of foreign workers in the U.S., locked in hybrid work protections for tens of thousands of staffers at the Social Security Administration, set a new Paris Climate Agreement goal to reduce U.S. net emissions by 61-66 percent in 2035 (that one will be easier to rescind), and attempted to hinder efforts to increase U.S. exports of liquid natural gas. And of course, there’s been the pardon-palooza.’
How a Telecom Bureaucrat Learned to Speak Trump
It’s not that there is some nefarious conspiracy around Project 2025. I suspect that Project 2025 asked the most vibrant conservative voices for their opinion of what to do. Of course, they’re going to be recruited for positions of influence.
The Project 2025 document is worth the read for anyone who wants to predict policy.
The real question is, can they implement?
‘Carr espouses a combative vision for how the FCC, long known for mundane functions such as auctioning radio spectrum, should use its power. He wrote the conservative policy agenda Project 2025’s chapter on the agency, and his approach is infused with a sense that tech and media companies have been unduly harsh toward conservatives.’
Federal Court Strikes a Final Blow to FCC’s Net-Neutrality Rules
This may shock a lot of people, but the Internet has been “fast, open, and fair” without net neutrality rules, thank you very much.
This whole scheme was nothing more than a ploy to subsidize Netflix (whose customers are responsible for a significant chunk of Internet traffic). The ISPs who bear the costs of carrying the traffic wanted to charge more to people who consumed a lot of this service. Go figure. Instead, net neutrality purported that that this was “discrimination.” Against who? People who like Hallmark-like holiday movies? Is that a protected class?
‘Democrats have promoted so-called net neutrality principles, which deter broadband providers from playing favorites with the websites they carry, since the Obama administration.’
Net neutrality eviscerated by appeals court ruling
There is no statutory mandate for net neutrality.
Thanks Loper for showing us the way.
No rinse and repeat, please. This Net Neutrality judgment is much more important than just voiding winner-picking and interventionism in Internet communications.
‘The three-judge panel ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have the authority to impose net neutrality rules on internet service providers (ISPs). The FCC sought to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act in order to impose policies meant to prevent them from discriminating against different internet traffic, like by slowing speeds or blocking content.
‘But the judges disagreed with the agency’s interpretation of how ISPs could be classified and were emboldened by the recent downfall of Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that instructed courts to defer to regulatory agencies in many cases. After the Supreme Court did away with that principle in 2024, courts became more free to favor their own interpretations over the judgment of expert agencies. Net neutrality was immediately seen as a prime target to be struck down without Chevron. While the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld previous iterations of net neutrality, the Sixth Circuit judges note that it relied on Chevron to do so. “Unlike past challenges that the D.C. Circuit considered under Chevron, we no longer afford deference to the FCC’s reading of the statute,” they write.’
Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by Appeals Court
Imagine if you had a utility provider, say for electricity. Everyone paid a fixed amount to consume as much electricity as they needed per month.
Then, some new service showed up that launched demand for electricity into the stratosphere, say electric cars. Anyone with an electric car might consume three or four times as much electricity as everyone else.
The electricity providers might be overwhelmed. They might try to say, you should pay for what you consume.
Net neutrality is like arguing in our contrived example that everyone has a God-given right to unlimited electricity usage for a fixed price that bears no relation to its actual cost.
‘The F.C.C. had voted in April to restore net neutrality regulations, which expand government oversight of broadband providers and aim to protect consumer access to the internet. The regulations were first put in place nearly a decade ago under the Obama administration and were aimed at preventing internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast from blocking or degrading the delivery of services from competitors like Netflix and YouTube. The rules were repealed under President-elect Donald J. Trump in his first administration, but they continued to be a contentious partisan issue that pit tech giants against broadband providers.’
How Health Insurers Racked Up Billions in Extra Payments From Medicare Advantage
When you make rules, people will find ways to exploit them.
When you make rules with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, people will find lots of ways to exploit them.
‘Under Medicare rules, the government pays insurers extra money to cover the costs of caring for patients who are diagnosed with certain conditions. Patients are typically diagnosed by the doctors and hospitals that treat them. But Medicare allows insurers to tack on additional diagnoses after reviewing medical charts and sending their own nurses to visit patients at home.’
The government can’t do big things because there were things that government did in the past that were big and that hurt people. This view of government as menace leads to chaos.
Why even have a government?
‘Reading @MarcDunkelman’s upcoming book, “Why Nothing Works,” about how progressivism has become paralyzed by vetocracy, and doing a thread with my reactions’
Regulation leads to inequality, homelessness edition.
‘While migrants have also flooded into Florida and Texas, these states seem to have absorbed them far better. Since 2019 the number of homeless has soared in Illinois (15,633), California (35,806) and New York (65,928), versus Texas (2,139) and Florida (3,034). Higher housing costs and unemployment in progressive states make it more difficult for migrants to support themselves.
‘Restrictive zoning and environmental regulations reduce housing supply and drive up prices. Compare the number of new housing permits issued last year in Texas (232,373) and Florida (193,788), versus California (117,760), New York (48,807) and Illinois (16,863).’
John Arnold on Carter, the Great Deregulator
One of the ironies of the four-year cycle is that President A puts in motion policies that only take real effect during the administration of President B.
Guess who gets the credit? Guess who takes the credit?
‘Carter did more to dismantle the regulatory state than any president in history. When he took office, federal agencies controlled pricing/competition in many industries: - price caps on gasoline and nat gas that created shortages - airlines needed permission to start new routes or lower pricing - interest rate ceiling on bank deposits - banks couldn't operate across state lines - trucking rates set by govt and interstate permits were hard to obtain - AT&T had monopoly on phone service - the 3 TV networks were highly regulated - cable tv highly restricted on type of programming - radio and tv station ownership limits - home brewing was illegal Carter deregulated or set the stage for market opening in every one of these areas.’