• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Fiction, Freedom, and The West

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: regulation

Facebook = Child Slavery

05 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

child abuse, England, Facebook, Nigeria, regulation, slavery

All you Facebook child picture-posting attention whores are leaving money on the digital table. Who knew, but a photo or two of a (Nigerian) daughter can be worth $10,000, 3 Land Cruisers, and some cows.

OBANLIKU, Nigeria—Monica, 16, is one of two sisters sold as wives to men who found their photographs on their father’s Facebook page and contacted him. She and her 14-year-old younger sister never wanted to get married until they completed their secondary education in Ogbakoko, a small village in Obanliku Local Government Area in Nigeria’s south-central Cross River state. But the teenage sisters fell victims to a culture which subjects little girls, some as young as 10, to de facto slavery through a tradition called “money marriage.”

The sisters belong to the Becheve community, a large tribe of 17 villages in Obanliku where there is a long tradition in which young girls—often referred to as “money women” or “money wives”—are sold in exchange for food or livestock or cash, or to settle debts.

…

Spokespeople for Facebook, when contacted by The Daily Beast, were not familiar with the phenomenon as practiced in the Becheve community.

In other cultures where brides have been auctioned online, measures have been taken to stop the transactions.

Reports of Facebook being used as a tool to facilitate child marriage aren’t unique to Nigeria. Last November, the social media platform came under fire after posts discussing the sale of a 16-year-old girl in South Sudan. The victim was married in the process after her father, in exchange for his daughter, received 530 cows, three Land Cruiser V8 cars and $10,000. The teenager reportedly was bid on by five men, including senior officials in the South Sudanese government.

Best of all, with Farcebook serving as the broker, there’s no need for annoying calls or emails from “the Prince.”

I, for one, am deeply ashamed of Suckerberg for taking the ad down once it was brought to his people’s attention. That was a slap in the face to an age-old vibrant and diverse cultural tradition. Think of the tasty ethnic food. They could use this in Nashville.

Elsewhere, the Brits are crafting some of Zuckerborg’s regulations:

In a joint foreword, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, and the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, Jeremy Wright, say it is time to move beyond self-regulation and set clear standards, backed up by enforcement powers.

Companies will be asked to comply with a code of practice, setting out what steps they are taking to ensure that they meet the duty of care – including by designing products and platforms to make them safer, and pointing users who have suffered harm towards support.

The code of practice is also likely to include the steps companies will be expected to take to combat disinformation, including by using fact-checking services, particularly during election periods, and improving the transparency of political advertising.

Regulated firms will be expected to comply with the code of practice – or explain what other steps they are taking to meet the duty of care. However, many questions are left to the regulator to determine.

Theresa May has repeatedly raised the issue of online harm, and the government has gradually shifted its position, from favouring voluntary self-regulation to backing tougher enforcement.

This won’t bother Zuck. It won’t harm any backward future “refugees” and proposition “citizens.” It will be aimed at you. Censorship, taxes, maybe a social media user’s license – all possible. Then, sometime after they discover all the pictures you weren’t paid to post, your children may sue you for violating their privacy.

Delete your Facebook accounts today.

Br’er Zuckerberg’s Tar Baby

31 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Br’er Zuckerberg’s Tar Baby

Tags

Facebook, government, regulation, told you so, TPC, Zuckerberg

Zuck wants to protect you and your private data. Let that sink in. Come closer, little girl, I’ve got some candy… Of course, the only known way to protect people is through more and more government intrusion. Perish the thought that people could just, you know, stay off of known spy and misinformation sites.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Saturday called for governments to play a greater role in regulating the Internet, citing four areas where he believes better rules are needed.

Zuckerberg said new regulations are needed to protect society from harmful content, ensure election integrity, protect people’s privacy and to guarantee data portability.

Facebook has faced a torrent of public criticism over its handling of Russian intervention in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and its policies on hate speech that many governments and users consider too lax. At the same time, conservative lawmakers in the U.S. have accused Facebook of political bias and censorship.

Zuckerberg proposed regulating harmful content by setting up independent bodies to set standards for what is considered terrorist propaganda and hate speech and is therefore prohibited.

‘You don’t say much, do you? You stuck up or something?!’ And, Tar Book, she still ain’t say nothin’…

But, Br’er Lovett, he say plenty. From TPC, last April:

His other motive was the afore-mentioned collusion. A dirty little secret of the political world is that large corporations are absolutely head over heels in love with government regulation. State mandates price out competition, prevent startup challenges, foster monopolies, and raise profits. One of “your” political heroes hinted around this fact; Zuck nodded along sheepishly.

…

What we witnessed this week was the deprecation of freedom, free markets, and personal responsibility. Some would spread that spirit beyond the socials unto the whole internet. There’s the old adage about sacrificing essential liberty for false security. Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear will promise saaaaafety, all the while plotting to sacrifice Br’er Rabbit to the dinner pot. Help we could do without, that.

See? I. Told. You. So.

Screenshot 2019-03-30 at 8.25.40 PM

FDA War on Cigars, part 2??? – clearing the drafts

15 Saturday Dec 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, cigars, FDA, freedom, government, law, regulation, The People

***Note*** I’ve got a lot of drafts sitting around, some in existence and unpublished since 2013. It became obvious to me that I’m in no hurry to get around to them. But, they’ve survived various draft purges over the years. If they’re that important I can just come back and elaborate later. For now, I offer them, kind of as-is, in this, a lightning publishing round. The fun will continue while supplies last. Make of these what you will. Or not. I don’t care.

*****

Aha! I found this, just a list of links to past news stories. The FDA communist assault continues, though some fight it. I’ve covered that. I even published a submitted CFR comment. Entertain yourselves, particularly if you’re in the industry, with the following (if operable – not checking):

 

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm499234.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/23/diane-katz-fda-cigar-rules-threaten-industrys-smal/

How FDA Rules Are Making Life Hell For Cigar Lovers

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/05/10/2016-10685/deeming-tobacco-products-to-be-subject-to-the-federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act-as-amended-by-the

https://www.cigarrights.org/fda-response.php

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs187/1102288667527/archive/1117218447736.html

The era of unregulated cigars may be going up in smoke

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewing the New Cigar Warning Labels (With Added Warning)

19 Thursday Jul 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

BS, cigars, FDA, government, logic, regulation, science, stupidity

The gullible American people and their Chicken Little politicritters love a good epidemic. One woman gets Zika? Epidemic. Someone run over by a texting driver? Epidemic. Banksters and pols loot 99% of the value out of the Dollar while squashing civil liberties? Epid … oops, nevermind that one…

I just read about the next great epidemic – Benzos! Valium reminds some doctor a lot of the opioid crisis! Crisis. Epidemic. Same thing. We’ll need a new law and some more regs! Maybe the FDA can get around to that once they cure another great epidemic – pregnant women smoking cigars…

Come August 10th, retail cigars (to include individual units) must be accompanied by one of the following six warning labels: herein, my review:

WARNING: Cigar smoking can cause cancers of the mouth and throat, even if you do not inhale.

A lie. See explanation below.

WARNING: Cigar smoking can cause lung cancer and heart disease.

A lie. See immediately below.

WARNING: Cigars are not a safe alternative to cigarettes.

Part lie, part category error. Cigars are safe (FDA studies say so). However, they’re not an alternative to cigarettes, at all, with next to nothing in common except the burning aspect. Cigarettes are paper wrapped chemicals, tar, and, maybe, a little cheap tobacco. Cigars are pure, 100%, natural, organic, Earth-friendly, environmentally responsible tobacco from the best fields. Not just a lie, an eco-lie (very bad).

WARNING: Tobacco smoke increases the risk of lung cancer and heart disease, even in nonsmokers.

Yet another lie.

WARNING: Cigar use while pregnant can harm you and your baby.
or
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Tobacco Use Increases the Risk of Infertility, Stillbirth and Low Birth Weight.*

Now they involve the poor Surgeon General. This one is either a lie OR another false conflation. Again, it’s cigars, not cigarettes. And, women constitute something like 0.5% of all cigar smokers. Pregnant women are around, I’m guessing here, 0.000000%. Totally irrelevant and utterly stupid. I challenge the FDA to present one single case, ever, of any baby negatively affected by cigars. Scratch that. I challenge the FDA to pack up New Hampshire Avenue and just get the hell out of America and out our lives. I say they can’t do it. Let ’em prove me wrong!

WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.

Believe it, or not, this one is not a complete lie. Rather, it’s a false syllogism of sorts, in reverse, kind of. Like this:

Major premise: Nicotine is bad.

Minor premise: Cigars contain nicotine.

Conclusion: Warrants a warning.

Again, again, again … cigars differ in many ways from cigarettes. Premium cigar makers do not add additional nicotine (or anything else) to the wrappers, binders, or fillers that constitute that lovely leafy goodness. Said leaf by itself does, in fact, contain a little nicotine. But, so do: tea leaves, eggplants, potatoes, peppers, cauliflower, and tomatoes.

Do these eggplant-IQ’d busybodies go around warning mums to be about the dangers of real eggplants? Could be; it’s a big CFR… Yet another government, elsewhere – the Royal Society for Public Health – just determined that scary, addictive nicotine is “no more dangerous than the caffeine in a cup of coffee.”

I get it, I get it. Warning labels on coffee come next…

With all these warnings floating around, I thought I might add one that isn’t based on complete BS. This:

****

GOVERNMENT WARNING!

Government is the most dangerous non-natural thing in existence, possibly more destructive than a gamma-ray burst. Government is not a safe alternative to freedom.

-or-

Take your labels and shove ’em.

******

Feel free to post that by the cash register.

april fools day cigar.0

At This Time We Will Begin Boarding Our Sardines and Unvalued Third-Class Trash…

08 Sunday Jul 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

flying, George Carlin, government, regulation

This could be the most amazing story of the week. The federal empire regulates almost everything. Everything. Including measurements and sizes. They regulate bank deposits. And bullet calibers. And rural telephone lines. And who flys what over other countries. And the volume of toilet tanks. And “short” lobsters (whom, I think, prefer to be called “little” lobsters…).

With all this regulatin’, it’s a wonder that they are bowing out of the opportunity to regulate airline seat sizes. Not their problem, they say…

Cramped cabins, knocked knees, aggrieved elbows: all real problems for today’s flyers. But the Federal Aviation Administration has said they aren’t its problems — announcing Tuesday that it will not regulate airline seat size and legroom.

The decision came in the form of a letter responding to a lawsuit brought by the group Flyers Rights.

Flyers Rights said that shrinking seats, which it calls sardine seats, present an issue during emergency evacuations, especially as larger passengers could struggle to get out of the seats in a hurry.

After Passenger Dragging Last Year, Airlines Improved Performance

But the FAA said that current seat size is not a safety issue.

This is an outrage. You, Mr. John Q. Flyboy, should write to whatever snake-oil, con artist “represents” you in Congress!

Or, just laugh with Carlin:

Carlin/YT.

Eric Newman Fights for Cigar Rights

10 Thursday May 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Eric Newman Fights for Cigar Rights

Tags

cigars, FDA, government, JC Newman, regulation

For freedom. For his customers. For his employees and their families.

Newman, of J.C. Newman cigars, seeks the exemption of premium cigars from FDA meddling:

But Newman and his industry now have a second chance under a new administration that touts itself as anti-regulation and pro-business.

The FDA has announced it is willing to reconsider the 2016 decision. It began accepting public input in March on whether premium cigars should be exempt from oversight. The comment period runs through June 25.

In Tampa, known as Cigar City for its history as an epicenter for the industry, this is welcome news for those who roll premium cigars. They claim the governance could financially hurt or even put them out of business.

“Over regulation can harm small business,” said Newman, who employs 135 at his Ybor factory, the last in a city that once hosted dozens. The company has been in business for 123 years.

Those interested in helping the fight can do so at the Federal Register, right now. Make a comment, make your voice heard. Here’s mine:

Dear Public Servants:

The FDA (which I cannot find in the U.S. Constitution) has no legitimate business regulating premium cigars. Nor is any regulation, outside that of the free market, needed. The FDA knows well that casual, daily cigar smoking poses no risk of increased health problems. See: Article: FDA STUDY: CANCER RISKS NEARLY NIL FOR 1-2 CIGARS PER DAY, http://www.heartland.org, AUGUST 25, 2016, Dr. Brad Rodu (https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/fda-study-cancer-risks-nearly-nil-for-1-2-cigars-per-day); Study: Systematic review of cigar smoking and all cause and smoking related mortality, Cindy M. Chang, et al, 2015 (https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5)(a comprehensive, multi-decade medical review of amalgamated study sources).

All regulation of the cigar industry is misguided, a waste of resources, and a dire threat to the well-being of those U.S. citizens employed in the cigar industry along with their dependent families, to say nothing of the millions of sensible American adults who happily enjoy cigars and freedom. Such regulation represents a real violation of associated liberty interests of the free people (interests which are found in the Constitution).

Accordingly, please abolish all FDA regulations concerning premium cigars and tobacco. Also, I suggest restitution be paid by the U.S. Treasury to all cigar companies previously affected by such existing regulation.

Kindly leave well enough alone.

Thank you.

The other side of this issue, the heavy-handed, anti-freedom, SJW side, which vaguely resembles the proponent side of gun control communism, relies on outright, known falsehoods:

On that point, Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, noted in a statement that the agency has already weighed in.

“The FDA rightly rejected the option of exempting premium cigars,” Myers said, “finding all cigars increase the risk of disease, are potentially addictive and produce secondhand smoke that can cause disease to non-users.”

I’ve been in a lot of cigar shops over many years. I’ve never seen a single child smoke a cigar. I do, however, follow the facts, which conclusively demonstrate that cigars pose no additional health risks whatsoever. In fact, time was when cigars were recommended by doctors as curative treatment for a variety of ailments – even for the children. That’s how Teddy Roosevelt beat asthma.

Thank you, Mr. Newman.

Save Cigar City! Save freedom!

AR-305109981

Tampa Bay Times/ Scott Keeler.

Mr. Zuckerberg Goes to Washington

10 Tuesday Apr 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Mr. Zuckerberg Goes to Washington

Tags

Facebook, force, government, regulation, Senate, social media, Zuckerberg

Sharpening the double-edged sword:

The Zuck is on the Hill, facing off against a panel of Senatorial Congress Critters:

Some of the toughest questioning so far comes from Sen. Lindsey Graham, who pushes Zuckerberg on whether Facebook is a monopoly.

When asked straight up whether Facebook has a monopoly, Zuckerberg responds “It certainly doesn’t feel like that to me.” The response is met with some gentle laughter.

Graham stays on him, also asking about European regulations and if those rules are right.

“I think they get things right,” Zuckerberg responds, followed by a few more light chuckles.

Chuckles aside, ask yourself this: “When has government regulation ever worked out all that well?” And I’m talking from a freedom of action perspective.

As big, bad, intrusive, and even dangerous as Facebook may be, I’m not aware of them, or any other Social, ever putting a gun to anyone’s head to compel usage, payment, or actions. I could be wrong; I would have asked about it had I been there…

The same cannot be said for government, any government. They have been known to point and click with guns and worse weapons. The State is force. Period.

Facebook, and all the socials, already fall under one form or existing regulation or another. There’s a reason Zuck is being so polite and helpful seeming today. He knows that, with 55 million or 80 million privacy violations, Facebook could be FTC fined out of existence. It won’t be but it could be.

Rather, I see a bunch of Uniparty animals chomping at the bit to further intrude into the internet – for our good and safety and all of course. Is that really what we need?

I assume the answer from most Americans is a big, blank, unconcerned, drooling stare.

UPDATE: A few things:

  • Listening to many of these questions and grandstands is more cringeworthy than most of the answers. “I do’h wanna reg-ya-late ya but golly gee ah will!”
  • Today privacy is largely an illusion – especially if you willingly put yourself out there without encryption, VPNs, etc. You do that? Buyer, escuse me, … freebie user beware.
  • A good friend reminded me that we’ve all known that the government tracks, records, stores, and misappropriates all electronic communications and that we’ve known it for years. (Originally one of them thar crazy conspiracy theories…) Knowing all that, how many folks do NOT use email, socials, and phones? Yeah.
  • NO! Most people don’t read disclaimers. That would require reading.
  • Large corporations LOVE regulation. It’s not them versus the government. It’s them and the government versus you and any poor startups. “Protecting” you by ensuring their monopolies and increased profits.
  • We’re witnessing the mass slander of the free market and the sense of the people. The latter might be warranted.
  • “Senator. Senator… Senator!” How about: “listen scumbag” and “you criminals”?
  • With all these idiots babbling about the complexity of the user agreements, Zuck could just answer: “Enough about me. How about YOUR tax code?”
  • Can’t believe I’m taking the side of Zuck and Co. here.
  • Geeze…

th

Zuck it up. Drudge.

Regulating the Regulations, 2 for 1 Analysis

31 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Regulating the Regulations, 2 for 1 Analysis

Tags

CFR, Donald Trump, Federal government, government, money, regulation

A friend and loyal reader from Facebook (one of half a dozen, maybe less!) posted the following in response to my little blurb on the 2 for 1 cuttings in the CFR forest:

This idea came from the Canadians. When I first heard about the Canadian 2for1, it sounded great. Then, I read that they had the caveat “2 regulations of equal or greater impact”. Well, right there, is wiggle room for administrators. There must be hundreds of thousands on the books, some of them perhaps dealing with standard Conestoga wagon sizes. Not sure if Trumps EO contains this caveat.

Not, that I’m against the idea. A long time ago, I advocated for capping city regulations at (say) 200. You add one, and remove one. So think carefully.

Thanks, Pat! Great points, all. I didn’t look into the Canadian angle (the land of Maple and Hockey scares me…). I know Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia (a DEMOCRAT, for some of my other FB peeps) essentially proposed the exact same thing a few years back. This Order, which I’ll get to in a second, is ostensibly aimed at two things: easing the burden on businesses and citizens, and; controlling the admin budget.

nimbus-image-1485911565458

The White House.

Pat nailed it with the “wiggle room for administrators” part. That’s the name of the game in quasi-legislative admin law land. When I practiced law, I batted 1,000 in regulatory cases (hearings and litigation). Never lost a case. Federal, state, and local. 100% wins.

How? Because the entire system is bullsh!t. And no-one knows what the hell any of it means. And because I just happened to be especially good at that type of BS. Just say random things, reference a reg., and sound authoritative.

The people in charge of the agencies make a living wiggling around like that. They literally make this crap up as they go. By the way, 200 is nice, but I would cap the federal regs at 0. At least insofar as they apply to the people. I suppose they have copious pages of internal operating procedures. I don’t care how they schedule desk duty for signing for the Fed Ex man. Their business. It’s our business I worry about. And I think Trump shares the sentiment. His Order (in full):

Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

REDUCING REGULATION AND CONTROLLING REGULATORY COSTS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. In addition to the management of the direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars through the budgeting process, it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

Sec. 2. Regulatory Cap for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency (agency) publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.

(b) For fiscal year 2017, which is in progress, the heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director).

(c) In furtherance of the requirement of subsection (a) of this section, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. Any agency eliminating existing costs associated with prior regulations under this subsection shall do so in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law.

(d) The Director shall provide the heads of agencies with guidance on the implementation of this section. Such guidance shall address, among other things, processes for standardizing the measurement and estimation of regulatory costs; standards for determining what qualifies as new and offsetting regulations; standards for determining the costs of existing regulations that are considered for elimination; processes for accounting for costs in different fiscal years; methods to oversee the issuance of rules with costs offset by savings at different times or different agencies; and emergencies and other circumstances that might justify individual waivers of the requirements of this section. The Director shall consider phasing in and updating these requirements.

Sec. 3. Annual Regulatory Cost Submissions to the Office of Management and Budget. (a) Beginning with the Regulatory Plans (required under Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended, or any successor order) for fiscal year 2018, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each agency shall identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations described in section 2(c) of this order, and provide the agency’s best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.

(b) Each regulation approved by the Director during the Presidential budget process shall be included in the Unified Regulatory Agenda required under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or any successor order.

(c) Unless otherwise required by law, no regulation shall be issued by an agency if it was not included on the most recent version or update of the published Unified Regulatory Agenda as required under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or any successor order, unless the issuance of such regulation was approved in advance in writing by the Director.

(d) During the Presidential budget process, the Director shall identify to agencies a total amount of incremental costs that will be allowed for each agency in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations for the next fiscal year. No regulations exceeding the agency’s total incremental cost allowance will be permitted in that fiscal year, unless required by law or approved in writing by the Director. The total incremental cost allowance may allow an increase or require a reduction in total regulatory cost.

(e) The Director shall provide the heads of agencies with guidance on the implementation of the requirements in this section.

Sec. 4. Definition. For purposes of this order the term “regulation” or “rule” means an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does not include:

(a) regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States;

(b) regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel; or

(c) any other category of regulations exempted by the Director.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 30, 2017.

I didn’t see anything in there that jumped out, overtly, as picking or minimizing impact based on value. I did, however, note the afore-mentioned items.

The first is found in Sec. 1. The CFR creates an insane burden on people and companies. Forced (at gun point) compliance is one of the three (non martial) ways the government dominates all life on Earth (the others being taxation and inflation). In his former business life I’m sure Trump spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars complying with these things. Thus, he wants, upfront and in writing, to aim protection at those who suffer – the People.

Second, he wants to reign in the federal budget, much of which is consumed by regulatory expenditures. How much? Don’t know. A LOT! The rest of the Order repeatedly talks about cutting costs. There’s nothing stating “Canadian” equal or greater impact. However, that is hinted at. It would make fiscal sense to do away with the most costly regs first from a budget standpoint.

However, I do not see that as a limit here – just a strong suggestion. Even if that became standard operating procedure, cutting so as to be revenue neutral, it would go a long way towards halting the cancerous growth of the administrative budget. And that’s its own issue in the Order.

Right now there is no independent assessment of the regulatory budget. There never has been. The closest we have is a lumping together of these expenses in the annual budget Bill summaries. And the clowns in Congress haven’t put together a complete budget in ten years! They are literally spending our money willy-nilly.

Trump’s Order directs annual expenses to the OMB. He’s telling them to publish a budget if they want one considered. And he’s telling them to cut the associated costs. It’s far from perfect but this is the best thing I’ve seen on the subject, maybe ever.

Setting aside the blatant fact that nearly 100% of all regulations represent illegal abdication of Congressional legislative authority. (Where’s the DOE or the other DOE or the DOC in the Constitution? Where’s the rule-making authority? Don’t look; it’s none of it in there). Setting that aside, the program is wildly expensive, inside and out of D.C.

I’m not looking through pie charts for a breakdown but I safely guess the total budgetary bill for all these agencies and their rules is on the order of $200 Billion. Per year. The total expense outside of the government, the cost of complying with these illegal fiat-laws is probably on the order of $1 Trillion per year. That’s $1 Trillion better left in the general economy – 20 million, $50,000 a year jobs, for example.

The size and scope of the CFR is truly baffling. I wasn’t too far off calling it a minor planet. In its infancy, in 1960, it stood in around 23,000 pages. By 1975 it was up to 71,000 pages. Now it’s closing in on 200,000 pages across 50 Titles. The index alone is 1,100 pages long – about the size of a large dictionary, the Bible, or The Lord of the Rings. Obama added over 17,000 pages in his first five years in office.

Assume one to two pages per regulation and you’ve got a whole sh!t-ton of BS to wiggle through – or pay for.

Some feebly argue these regulations “protect” people. The children, the crippled, the downtrodden, etc. Were none of these people protected in 1975? 1960? The answer is “yes” and, back then,they had jobs because businesses didn’t divert as much cash to satisfying this forest of craziness. And believe it or not, people existed, thrived, and were “protected” before any of this started. How else did people survive long enough to witness the creation of the “protective” agencies which are killing them?

Ryan Young wrote a piece on the 2 for 1 parings for the Competitive Enterprise Institute yesterday. It’s worth a read as is much of their information (where some of my numbers herein came from).

However this may work out one thing is certain: there is plenty of material to work with. Oil that chainsaw, Mr. Trump.

Two for One Sale at the C.F.R.

30 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

CFR, Donald Trump, government, regulation

Modern American regulation, the entire nightmare of it, was born of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. The incomprehensible jabbering of 100,000 lawyers and autocrats is found in the C.F.R. or Code of Federal Regulations (because the Code Code just wasn’t enough). The CFR has grown so large that NASA has just reclassified it as a minor planet.

Someone is about to take an axe to that old, dead tree.

President Donald Trump signed an order on Monday that will seek to dramatically pare back federal regulations by requiring agencies to cut two existing regulations for every new rule introduced.

“This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen. There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be normalized control,” Trump said as he signed the order in the Oval Office, surrounded by a group of small business owners.

Trump’s latest executive action will prepare a process for the White House to set an annual cap on the cost of new regulations, a senior official told reporters ahead of the signing.

This has never happened before. This has never even been murmured about. This isn’t whittling away with an Old Timer. This is the axe. The chainsaw. This is indiscriminate libertarianism running amok.

I’ve talked about paring down government. Ron Paul raved about it. Trump is preparing to do it. Absolutely amazing.

In law schools they candidly refer to the APA as the “lawyerly employment act”. And it is. Or was. Better retool, boys and girls.

CUT Regulations??? This Could Be Huge

23 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Donald Trump, government, regulation

President Trump expressed interest in cutting federal regulations by 75%, maybe more. This is, if true, astounding.

President Donald Trump told business leaders on Monday he believes he can cut regulations by 75 percent or “maybe more.”

At the White House with 10 senior executives, he repeated his campaign pledges to roll back corporate rules, arguing that they have “gotten out of control.” A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request to elaborate on which rules Trump will target or how the 75 percent was calculated.

“We’re going to be cutting regulation massively,” but the rules will be “just as protective of the people,” Trump told reporters at the meeting that included Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk and Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank.

Democrats and interest groups have expressed concern about Trump’s plans to roll back Obama administration environmental protections and pull out of the landmark Paris climate accords, among other regulatory pledges.

This statement may have one or more Washingtonian meanings. Normally, in GPO-speak, it could signal cutting the growth of regulation by 75% (and then not doing even .01%). That would be big by itself as the regs grow like kudzu in the moist Georgia heat.

It could mean slashing regs primarily afflicting those businesses present at the meeting with Trump. Still big.

Or, Trump may actually want to trim the hell of the C.F.R. This would be almost unimaginable.

Regulation is one of the big three tools (the others being taxation and inflation) that government uses to maintain control of everything. None (not as many) of those jobs and factories are coming back to the U.S. if the insane level of regulation isn’t reduced. One thing that makes China, etc. so much cheaper for business is the lack of the EPA, FCC, OSHA, IRS, etc., etc., etc.

Cutting these by 75% – or even 7.5% – would go a long way and dove-tail well with Trump’s statements on trade and taxes.

That would only leave the lethal inflation monster. Part of that is Congressional overspending, the other part is the Federal Reserve. Both parts are connected by design – both to each other and to the other robbery/murder tools. If Trump throws around veto threats and encourages a Fed audit, this could go beyond huge.

This could all get interesting in a hurry. It almost seems like the man really does want to MAGA. Developing…

← Older posts

Perrin Lovett

perrinlovett@gmail.com

FREE Ebook!

The Substitute – my first novel

Buy Now at Amazon. $19.95 Paperback.

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Right-Minded Social Media For Normal People

Freedom Roasters Coffee AND Apparel

SPA Prepper Gear

Archives

  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (M-F)

Have a Cup!

Perrin’s Articles and Videos at FREEDOM PREPPER

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 35 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.