Tag: bureaucracy

Protector Protection

cfpb, watcher, eye, consumer, bureaucracy, power,

Government organizations are here to help. How do we know this? They have names that say so!

Take the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Great name. It is all about protecting consumers, right?

Created as part of the Dodd-Frank legislation that was pushed through Congress following the 2008 financial implosion, the CFPB is tougher than the usual run-of-the-mill government agency, however. In the words of Cato scholar Ilya Shapiro, it is “the most independent of independent agencies.” It has a single director, who is almost impossible to remove, and it is empowered to make, enforce, and adjudicate its rules.

And punish violators.

The CFPB doesn’t have to answer to anybody, not even to secure funding.

If this does not raise at least a teensy sense of alarm, let me offer two words of caution: power corrupts.

We all know the ease with which regulatory agencies may abuse their power over us — and few are as insulated from the rule of law as is the CFPB; its near-immunity from oversight makes the ‘power-corrupts’ problem much worse.

The law firm Seila Law LLC — which helps clients deal with debt problems — has sued to challenge the constitutionality of how CFPB is structured. Although lower courts have not been sympathetic with Seila’s argument, the case has now been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A satirist once famously asked, who will watch the watchers?

In the United States, we should ask, who will protect us from the protectors?

By the Constitution that would be the Supreme Court.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags bureaucracy, cfpb, consumer, eye, power, watcher

initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption

Revolt of the Desk Jockeys

Our Constitution guarantees that each state of the union provide a republican form of government.

Does that mean that all that is prohibited is … monarchy?

No.

One very common form of modern governance is deeply anti-republican, requiring — at the very least — strict regulation to prevent it from usurping our form of government. And what is this dangerous variety? The kind an economist defined centuries ago: “We have an illness in France which bids fair to play havoc with us; this illness is called bureaumania.” He called it “government by desk,” or, “bureaucratie.”

Yes, bureaucracy.

You might think I’m about to launch into another attack upon the Deep State, perhaps in relation to the ongoing coup-by-desk of the Trump Presidency.

But no. Let us turn to the other Washington, the one with the capital named Olympia.

In that hotbed of politics-as-usual, the city government printed out and mailed — on the public dime — a pamphlet entreating voters to vote against I‑976, a state-wide initiative that had been advanced onto the ballot by Tim Eyman* and hundreds of thousands of voter signatures.

Even if it had been a broadside for the initiative this would have been very, very bad.

In republics, those who inhabit public desks must not be allowed to hijack election campaigns from those who are, ultimately, in charge: the citizens.

And in Washington State by law: RCW 42.17A.555 broadly and strictly prohibits using public resources for campaigning.

Apparently, public servants in the Evergreen State (as elsewhere) do not see that they themselves can corrupt our form of government.

Which makes this government-printed pamphlet a very serious breach of law indeed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* You may remember me talking about Eyman before — often. I have called him the most effective limited-government activist in these United States. And it is from Eyman himself that I learned of this story.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags bureaucracy, initiative, Tim Eyman

folly government transparency media and media people national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Peel Back the Onion

The Onion, satire, humor, CFPB, bureaucracy

Yesterday, an Onion title caught my attention: “Hooded Members of Congress Drown Another Love Child in the Potomac to Prevent Affair from Getting Out.” This is not funny because it is true, but because it is so close to the truth. Too close for comfort.

A similar story, the day before, sported a title so sublime that you do not really need to read further: “Al Franken Tearfully Announces Intention To Step Down From Role As Harasser Of Women.” The week before that, another satire gave us this extravaganza: “Paul Ryan Announces New Congress Sexual Harassment Training Will Create Safe Work Atmosphere, Plausible Deniability.”

But sex scandals are easy. If The Onion were seriously in the satire biz, the farcical-on-the-surface nonsense of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brouhaha that I wrote about on Tuesday would get incisive treatment as well.

My advice to Onion writers? Don’t go halfway into the problem, like David A. Graham does in The Atlantic: “The Fight Over the CFPB Reveals the Broken State of American Politics.” Sure, that’s true. But concluding that “neither party sees the political process as effective in resolving these basic issues is worrying” hardly goes far enough, and the next line — “the fact that they might both be right is worse still” — shies from the full extent of the predicament.

The Constitution was designed to avoid problems like the CFPB nonsense. Start there. Something like this comes close: “Politicians Shocked, Shocked to Discover That an Un-Constitutional, Partisan Bureau Becomes Subject to Constitutional Dispute Along Partisan Lines.”

I have confidence that, if The Onion went there, it’d be funnier.

Even without a sex angle.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Tags bureaucracy, cfpb, humor, satire, The Onion

Accountability general freedom government transparency ideological culture insider corruption moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Invulnerable Government

cfpb, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, director, Richard Cordray, Mick Mulvaney, deep state, administrative state, bureaucracy

As of this week, there are two heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Two claimants to the throne, so to speak.

The bureau’s previous director, Richard Cordray, resigned last week, and as he left he appointed a deputy director, Leandra English. Ms. English sent out a nice Thanksgiving email, billing herself as “Acting Director.”

Meanwhile, in advance of Cordray’s exit, President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney to fill the role. Mulvaney showed up at work yesterday and took possession of the director’s office. He ordered a hiring freeze … and brought donuts.

It gets juicier. English has filed suit against the president and his appointee, claiming to be, herself, the directorship’s rightful heir. She cites the enabling legislation, which allowed for deputization by the director. And she cites her commitment to the agency’s mission, of which Mulvaney and Trump have none.

Republicans generally regard the agency as having gone rogue.

And the squabble over the directorship sure seems to validate that charge.

The legality? Presumably, the legislation that established the agency — which deliberately insulated the CFPB from oversight by funding it from the Federal Reserve — does not void an established law, the Vacancies Act, which does allows the president to fill vacated posts.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has taken up English’s side in the dispute, because she believes in the agency’s mission.

Now, I get it: to make government as impregnable as a high mountain fortress is an idea that many folks flirt with, from time to time. But the results are always the same: government secure from democratic checks and constitutional balance.

Come on, Democrats! Give democracy a chance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Tags administrative state, bureaucracy, cfpb, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, deep state, Director, Mick Mulvaney, Richard Cordray

Common Sense

The Immovable Non-movers

bureaucracy, bureaucrat, government, reform, interests

You can’t suspend the law of gravity. Nor, apparently, the laws of bureaucratic lethargy and inertia.

Diana Rickert was a policy analyst with the Illinois Policy Institute who accepted a job with the administration of Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner.

She lasted six weeks.

The assignment: combine and streamline several governmental departments. After years of “railing against government,” she felt she must accept this opportunity to improve government from the inside. Or else forever wonder whether she might have made a difference.

She’s learned her answer. She could not. Not as an insider. Not without the authority, at a minimum, to fire useless employees, who abound in Illinois’s state government.

And whose uselessness doesn’t always preclude outrageous expectations about salary and position.

Whether trying to get working computers or to get workers to work on simple but unfamiliar tasks, Diana and the few others eager to get stuff done were constantly thwarted by the apathy and sense of entitlement of the majority — and by endless arcane and senseless rules. Rather than imply tacit acceptance of such a broken, unfixable system, she resigned.

All this sounds familiar, an inevitable feature of government bureaucracy with its glued-in vested interests and lack of market-style profit incentives. Old news if you’ve ever been to the DMV.

So what’s the answer? Give up?

No. Illinois is “ready for change,” Diana Rickert says. But it’s outsiders who will have to change it — from the outside … “because the insiders never will.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Tags bureaucracy, bureaucrat, government, interests, reform

education and schooling folly nannyism national politics & policies too much government

D.C.’s Diaper-Dandy Regulation

Post author By CS Admin
Post date April 3, 2017
1 Comment on D.C.’s Diaper-Dandy Regulation

Washington, D.C., daycare, day-care, licensing, regulations, bureaucracy, laws, rules, accreditation

Where is child care most expensive?

In America, it is in our shining, shimmering national swamp. Yes, in Washington, D.C., infant care averages nearly $1,900 a month, more than $22,000 a year.

So naturally, if you’re a politician, you see that as too … low?

It has been decreed, since last December, that workers caring for infants and toddlers must upgrade their educations to keep their licenses. The District’s brave new world-class day-care regulations, the Washington Post informs us, are designed to “put the District at the forefront of a national effort to improve the quality of care and education for the youngest learners.”

Yesterday, at Townhall.com, I provided the details on

which day care workers or home caregivers must acquire
what type of college degree in early childhood education or,
if currently degreed in another field, how many semester credit hours in early childhood education they must have, or
whether a Child Development Associate (CDA) would suffice, and
by what date …

… just to keep their relatively low-paying jobs.

You may be shocked, but these new regs do not apply to the politicians and bureaucrats regulating the “industry.”

The costly credentials required to provide child care will certainly raise prices that D.C. parents already can ill afford. And won’t help those newly credentialed, either: “prospects are slim,” the Post admits, “that a degree will bring a significantly higher income.”

In a perfect world, every child-care worker would wield a Ph.D. in early childhood development. Be a pediatrician. As well as a psychiatrist.

And a former Navy SEAL, to fend off terrorists.

But who can fend off this regulatory attack on common sense?

I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF