Currently viewing the tag: “Requiring”
In February 2009, Continental flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air, plunged into a suburb of Buffalo, NY, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground. Pilot error was named as the chief cause of the crash, and investigators focused on pilot fatigue as one of the primary problems. The co-pilot had taken a cross-country, overnight flight the day before the crash, and only slept briefly in an airline lounge before she was required to pilot the flight.
When the plane encountered an ice storm as it attempted to land in Buffalo, the pilots struggled to respond appropriately, and The National Transportation Safety Board found that their “performance was likely impaired because of fatigue.” Both pilots were heard yawning on the cockpit voice recorder.
Families of the victims channeled their grief into action in the following months, launching a 15-month campaign to convince Congress to enact a variety of pilot performance safeguards. The bill passed last summer and, among other things, required the FAA to create tougher rules aimed at controlling pilot fatigue.
But today, the Republican House of Representatives passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) to a Republican-drafted aviation bill that would essentially gut the planned pilot fatigue rules by requiring extensive tailoring to many different segments of the aviation industry, and exempting several others.
Hero pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger blasted the amendment yesterday before it passed, saying “it creates a huge obstacle to new regulations,” and that, “at some point in the future, we don’t know when, it’s likely people will die unnecessarily.” Last night on the Ed Show, Sullenberger said the bill is a “slap in the face” to the Flight 3407 families. He also decried “special interests only interested in the bottom line.”
Watch it:
Family members of those killed on Flight 3407 are already speaking out against the Republican vote. “You can try to dress this up however you like, but we all know which special interests that [the amendment] is attempting to help and what it’s attempting to do for them, which is make it more difficult for the FAA to do its job and regulate them,” said Susan Bourque, who’s sister, Beverly Eckert, was killed in the crash.
Eckert’s husband, Sean Rooney, was killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and in the years following his death, Eckert became a leading 9/11 activist and helped lead the push for the 9/11 Commission. She was flying to Buffalo that evening to attend the unveiling of a scholarship in her late husband’s name.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has vowed to prevent the Shuster Amendment from becoming a part of the final aviation bill, after the House and Senate versions are reconciled.
(Eugene Volokh)
Baltimore Code § 3–501 to –503 — just enacted a year ago — provides that any organization that primarily provides pregnancy-related services but not abortion or certain kinds of birth control “must provide its clients and potential clients with a disclaimer substantially to the effect that the center does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services.” Friday, a district court held this to violate the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech, see O’Brien v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (D. Md.).
The court concluded that the law does not regulate commercial speech (correct, I think, since it applies to organizations that provide free counseling as well as those that sell products or services), that it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in preventing fraud (also correct, I think, especially in light of cases such as Riley v. National Federation of the Blind), and that it was viewpoint-based (more doubtful, but the result would be the same even if the requirement wasn’t characterized as being viewpoint-based). Thanks to Mike Chittenden for the pointer.
Arizona to pass a law that would require all presidential candidates to prove that they are eligible to occupy the office of the President of the United States. The bill will be proposed by Rep. Judy Burges. However, its not just Arizona, 5 other states also working on legislation that will require the ling form birth certificate. So who will provide Obama’s long form birth certificate?
A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.
The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.
It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.
Obviously this law will apply to all, but it is most likely targeted at President Barack Hussein Obama and his lack of producing a long form birth certificate. The issue has long dogged the president and has picked up much momentum lately as it appears that no “long form” birth certificate even exists.
Abercrombie Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii
“I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements,” she told WND. “We do not accept the federal government’s unconstitutional treatment of states as one of their extended branches.”
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, “which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury,” including “an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.”
It also requires testimony that the candidate “has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.”
“If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state,” the state plan explains.
Celebrity journalist Mike Evans told Minnesota’s KQRS radio.
Celebrity journalist Mike Evans told Minnesota’s KQRS radio last week that his friend, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, has been unable to find President Barack Obama’s birth certificate despite an intensive search.
A group of conspiracy theorists known as “birthers” have long claimed that Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency because he was actually born in Kenya.
Oh but wait, now Mike Evans says he misspoke and never discussed Obama’s birth certificate with Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie.
A celebrity journalist now claims he misspoke when he said last week that Hawaii’s governor told him he was unable to find President Barack Obama’s original birth certificate after a search of state and hospital archives.
Mike Evans told FoxNews.com on Wednesday he was remorseful and embarrassed that he appeared to have given the impression that he had discussed the search for Obama’s birth certificate with Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie.
Read HillBuzz, I don’t always agree with them much but they make some great common sense points. Is it possible that no one would really consider a person would never run for president knowing that they did not have the right to? Honestly, how can some one not produce their birth certificate? Seriously. We are just supposed to take some one’s word for it that they were born here for the highest office in the land? This isn’t like getting a at-a-boy referral to the Lions Club.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a cartoon. If we did, we’d all be riding around on those unicorns Obama promised us.
We actually live in a world where the President of the United States won’t produce his birth certificate, his college records, his legal career’s documentation, his records as a state senator, or anything else that’s left a paper trail in his life. Just because he doesn’t want to.
Or, he’s hiding something terrible that he knows would destroy him.
In 2008, there was no legal mechanism in place, apparently, to demand Obama produce any of these documents…and the media enable this situation by implying anyone asking him to produce these documents was either racist, crazy, paranoid, or all of the above.
(John)
Isn’t it perverse that Congress is requiring the abolition of perfectly good incandescent light bulbs, and their replacement by fluorescent lights that contain mercury, one of the deadliest substances known to mankind? (Mercury, as you likely know, is what made hatters mad.) How does requiring the introduction of poison into every home in the United States improve the environment, the stated purpose of the legislation?
Every now and then, of course, one of the new compact fluorescent light bulbs will break. Via the Heritage Foundation, here are the Environmental Protection Agency’s instructions for how to clean up the toxic products that the government is forcing you to buy:
Before Cleanup
* Have people and pets leave the room, and avoid the breakage area on the way out.
* Open a window or door to the outdoors and leave the room for 5‐10 minutes.
* Shut off the central forced‐air heating/air conditioning (H&AC) system, if you have one.
* Collect materials you will need to clean up the broken bulb:
o Stiff paper or cardboard
o Sticky tape (e.g., duct tape)
o Damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces)
o Glass jar with a metal lid (such as a canning jar) or a sealable plastic bag(s)
Got that? Now you are ready to start cleaning up the toxic substances you didn’t want in your house in the first place. This is how the EPA says to do it:
Cleanup Steps for Hard Surfaces
* Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place debris and paper/cardboard in a glass jar with a metal lid. If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag. (NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.)
* Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.
* Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
* Vacuuming of hard surfaces during cleanup is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. [NOTE: It is possible that vacuuming could spread mercury‐ containing powder or mercury vapor, although available information on this problem is limited.] If vacuuming is needed to ensure removal of all broken glass, keep the following tips in mind:
0 Keep a window or door to the outdoors open;
0 Vacuum the area where the bulb was broken using the vacuum hose, if available; and
0 Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and seal the bag/vacuum debris, and any materials used to clean the vacuum, in a plastic bag.* Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.
* Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your area. Some states and communities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center.
* Wash your hands with soap and water after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing bulb debris and cleanup materials.
* Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.
Suppose you break a fluorescent bulb on a rug or carpet. That requires a different cleanup protocol:
Cleanup Steps for Carpeting or Rugs
* Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place debris and paper/cardboard in a glass jar with a metal lid. If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag. (NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.)
* Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.
* Vacuuming of carpeting or rugs during cleanup is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. [NOTE: It is possible that vacuuming could spread mercury‐ containing powder or mercury vapor, although available information on this problem is limited.] If vacuuming is needed to ensure removal of all broken glass, keep the following tips in mind:
0 Keep a window or door to the outdoors open;
0 Vacuum the area where the bulb was broken using the vacuum hose, if available, and
0 Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and seal the bag/vacuum debris, and any materials used to clean the vacuum, in a plastic bag.* Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.
0 Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your area. Some states and communities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center.* Wash your hands with soap and water after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing bulb debris and cleanup materials.
* Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rugs: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
* The next several times you vacuum the rug or carpet, shut off the H&AC system if you have one, close the doors to other rooms, and open a window or door to the outside before vacuuming. Change the vacuum bag after each use in this area.
* After vacuuming is completed, keep the H&AC system shut off and the window or door to the outside open, as practical, for several hours.
You could say that requiring Americans to remove pretty much all of the light bulbs now in use and replace them with bulbs that people don’t want is the ultimate in nanny statism, except that nannies don’t generally poison the children in their care. If Americans understood what the Democrats were trying to do when they passed this legislation in 2007, the result would be mass outrage. Legislation has been introduced to repeal the impending ban on incandescent lights. Contact your Congressman and Senators, and tell them to vote for repeal.
When I got hired for my last job, before the job offer was final I had to submit to a drug test, and a background check which included a credit history. Employers look at a credit report for trustworthiness. They see the ability to pay bills in a consistent manner as an indication of whether you can be reliable in the workplace. It seems to be a fair and reasonable barometer, but not to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)- they think its racist.
That’s right, the Federal Government says, the practice is unlawful and violates a decades-old civil rights act that forbids hiring practices that have a racially discriminatory impact, according to a complaint filed this week by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Employers cannot screen out groups of people, even if it’s done “unintentionally,” said the government attorney handling the matter.
That’s right the law is, it doesn’t matter if you are trying to be racist or not, its the result (or perceived result that’s important)
The case involves a chain of private, for-profit colleges and training schools known as Kaplan Higher Education Corporation. Kaplan is famous for many things including SAT prep courses. For several years the company, which has 34,000 employees and hundreds of locations in dozens of countries, has conducted background checks on job applicants that include credit histories for those who may deal with financial matters if hired.
“This practice (factoring credit histories into hiring) has an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race and is neither job-related nor justified business necessity,” the agency alleged in a suit it filed against the Kaplan Higher Education Corporation in the U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio in Cleveland.
Kaplan has engaged in the practice since “at least 2008,” according to an EEOC statement.The EEOC said it took the action on behalf of African American applicants denied jobs based on findings in their credit reports.
Now the EEOC is seeking lost wages and benefits “for people who were not hired becuse of Kaplan Higher Education’s use of job applicants’ credit history.”
Oh Please!! This is going too far. Credit history should never be the sole determinant for employment, but there is nothing wrong with using it as a factor. It is a totally objective piece of information that is not racial in any way. The EEOC is making the suit to help some black people who did not get hired, what the government is not contending is that Kaplan does not have a racially or ethnically diverse work force.
In a recent letter to the agency, the Consumer Data Industry Association strongly defended using credit histories in hiring decisions. It told the agency that employers tried hard to create working environments that were free from fraud and theft.
In that letter, Eric J. Ellman, the association’s vice president for public policy and legal affairs, said, “In a climate of economic uncertainty, where employers are likely choosing from a large employment pool, they need to be critically careful about protecting their businesses and their customers.”
Mr. Ellman noted that the use of credit reports for employment purposes was legally protected and that “credit reports for employment purposes are reliable predictors of risk.”
“Many safeguards exist for employers to ensure that credit information is used where it is job-related and consistent with business necessity,” he concluded in his letter to the agency.
It seems as if the EEOC is not trying to “level the playing field” but instead trying to change the rules to skew the playing field, but under the Obama administration that is the way agencies are supposed to act. Just ask the DOJ.
Please email me at [email protected] to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com![]()
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
A provision of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law that is often overlooked is one requiring lenders to hold onto a portion of risky loans that they make. This addresses a key problem that contributed to the country’s economic meltdown, which was the ability for subprime lenders to securitize and sell off an entire loan, divorcing themselves from the risk of mortgage default.
As the Center for Public Integrity has pointed out, during the subprime bubble, “lenders were selling their loans to Wall Street, so they wouldn’t be left holding the deed in the event of a foreclosure.” Wall Street then sold the loans off to investors, moving the default risk even further down the road. This process fueled a dramatic decline in lending standards.
Dodd-Frank requires that lenders retain five percent of every loan on their books, so that they are not completely separated from default risk. McClatchy reports that the banks are trying to quietly nix that part of the law:
Financial lobbyists also are working to soften requirements that Wall Street firms put more “skin in the game” by retaining more mortgage bonds on their books to guard against shoddy lending…They’re trying to expand the definition of “plain vanilla” mortgages that would be exempted from the risk-retention requirements. […]
The [American Securitization Forum] and its members want to exempt interest-only mortgages, which caused many unsophisticated borrowers to lose their homes. “Certain types of loans aren’t standard, but are appropriate for high creditworthy borrowers,” Deutsch said in an interview, pointing to wealthy borrowers who seek to maximize their mortgage-interest deductions at tax time.
During the debate over Dodd-Frank, the banks pushed Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) to propose an amendment (which was ultimately defeated) striking the risk-retention provision from the bill. It’s no surprise that during the law’s rule-making phase, they are trying to weaken it as much as possible.
Exempting interest-only loans from the risk-retention requirement would be particularly detrimental, considering that they are risky loans that typically involve large resets, and the dramatic increase in monthly mortgage payments that such resets entail. “In a lot of ways, [an interest-only loan is] an illusion of homeownership with the reality of rental,” said Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending.
With House Republicans hell-bent on rolling back provisions in Dodd-Frank, this is one more area that merits watching. After all, the banking industry is already counting on “better outcomes” with Republicans running the lower chamber.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today struck down an Arizona law that required proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
The law, which was passed as Proposition 200 by voter referendum in 2004, is meant to prevent illegal immigrants from voting and other forms of voter fraud. The court struck down the provision requiring proof of citizenship to register, but upheld provisions requiring identification at polling places.
In its ruling, the court wrote that the National Voting Rights Act supersedes Arizona’s law.
Proponents of tighter voting regulations, mostly Republicans, advocate passing laws that would require both proof of citizenship while registering and ID at the polls. Critics say that could create obstacles for eligible voters.
Politico’s Sarah Kliff and Jennifer Haberkorn are reporting that after six months of deliberations, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) have approved model regulations governing the all-important medical-loss ratio provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These regulations require insurers that don’t spend 80% to 85% of their premium dollars on health care to send refunds to their customers. The percentages are calculated from a ratio of “health expenditures” to other expenses and since reform became law, insurers have pressured the NAIC to include certain administrative expenses as medical costs, exclude all federal taxes from their revenue (the denominator in the MLR ratio), and allow insurers to aggregate the ratio across plans and markets — all in an effort to make it easier for the industry to meet the MLR requirements without actually spending more on health care.
The NAIC had already issued draft regulations which ignored many of these arguments, but in the days and moments leading up to the final vote, “Commissioners offered four ultimately unsuccessful, amendments: to remove brokers fees from the calculation and to aggregate spending calculations nationally rather than at the state level and two amendments related to giving insurers credits to help them reach the spending levels.” Despite the least minute activity and intense lobbying, “the proposed regulation moved forward unchanged”:
– TAXES: NAIC rejected the Congressional Committee chair’s statement that they only meant to allow issuers to deduct those taxes that are specifically related to the Affordable Care Act. It ruled that issuers can exclude all federal taxes but those on investment income.
– DEFINING HEALTH COSTS: NAIC rejected insurers’ suggestion that services like anti-fraud and “utilization review” be included in the definition of “medical expenses,” included other services that have not been traditionally classified as “medical,” and required issuers to substantiate why certain services improve care quality.
– AGGREGATION: Insures wanted the NAIC to calculate their MLRs across different units and markets. This would have allowed insures to group their plans together to mask the low MLRs of some of their plans. The draft guidelines would require issuers to break them down and account for the MLRs separately at every business unit in every state, preventing them from obscuring some low MLR plans.
– BROKER FEES: “The commissioners did approve a motion to appoint a subgroup to work with HHS on how to deal with issues related to broker and agent compensation. This compensation is currently categorized as an administrative expense; agent trade groups have pushed for their fees to be taken out of the calculation altogether. Brokers are nervous that their role will be greatly diminished if their fees are categorized as administrative spending.”
– CREDIBILITY ADJUSTMENTS: These address the normal statistical fluctuations that affect smaller and newer plans. In order to adjust for this, the NAIC considered introducing credibility adjustments based upon the size of an insurer’s business. The NAIC rejected moving from a 50% to a 80% confidence level on credibility adjustments, which would have given insurers a big break and made it easier for companies to meet the MLR.
The model regulation will now be delivered to Health and Human Services (HHS) for certification by the Secretary and consumer advocates I spoke too are fairly happy with the rule. “We are very proud of the NAIC this morning. Congress asked them to do a job and they did it with openness, integrity, and dignity,” W & L Law School Professor Timothy Jost emailed me in a statement. “Although we did not get everything we wanted in the MLR rule as consumers, we think the rule is fair, workable, and faithful to the law.” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has also issued a positive statement. “These recommendations are reasonable, achievable for insurers and will help to ensure insurance premiums are, for the most part, supporting health benefits for consumers,” she said. “Not only do they ensure consumers receive better value for their health care dollar, they recognize special circumstances in different markets to preserve market stability and employee coverage as we transition to the new marketplace in 2014. ”
However, HHS has already indicated that it would likely issue wavers to mini-med plans and other insurance plans that would be unable to meet the new requirements because of the way they are structured.
(Todd Zywicki)
This summer, shortly before Dodd-Frank was enacted, I offered several suggestions on how the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection could be made more consumer-friendly. Several of my concerns were based on my experience working at the Federal Trade Commission and studying the regulatory process. In particular, I noted the dangers presented by the almost complete lack of any oversight or checks and balances of the new super-regulator. Obviously my concerns were not reflected in the final legislation.
Another proposal that I didn’t discuss then but which I now offer (together with two of my colleagues from the Mercatus Center) is to subject CFPB actions to OIRA review. We offer the proposal in a Reuters column “The Next Hot Ticket in Financial Reform.” We argue that although independent agencies (such as the Fed) typically are exempted from the OIRA review process, that is because they have internal checks and balances that mitigate some of the pathologies to which bureaucratic processes typically are prone. Notably, most independent agencies are headed by multi-member panels, often bipartisan in nature. While imperfect (as is OIRA review itself), it is at least arguable that this will provide some degree of deliberation and protection against tunnel vision and agency capture.
The CFPB, by contrast, is headed by one person with virtually unreviewable authority. It would be hard to imagine a bureaucratic design more susceptible to bureaucratic pathology than the CFPB. We argue that OIRA review might at least minimize some of the harm that the new Bureau inevitably is going to do to the economy and consumers.
