Monday, June 29, 2009

Ryan Young's defecation of the day

The CEI's demented blog is hitting hit new lows with contributions from their new "Fellow in Regulatory Studies", Ryan Young.

Since, to him, all regulations are bad, he's invented a game of picking a page out of the Federal Register at random, discovering he's unable to understand it, and then writing any old shite and linking to it.

Here's an example:
The ninth in an occasional series that shines a bit of light on the regulatory state.

Today’s Regulation of the Day comes to us from the Department of Transportation ($70.3 billion 2009 budget, 58,622 employees)

Before any regulation goes into effect, the proposal is released to the public for a comment period. Anyone who is interested can write the agency and say why they think the new rule is a good or a bad idea. CEI does this regularly, by the way (see here and here). [those links have nothing to do with this regulation -- MEB]

Agencies are legally obliged to take all comments into account before going forward with the rule. And sometimes, they really do listen.

Because of overwhelmingly negative comments, DOT has decided not to go forward with a proposed change to federal school bus policy (isn’t education supposed to be a local issue?).

Read all about it on page 30,499 of the 2009 Federal Register.
Except you can't "read all about it" on that link, because it's a note about the withdrawal (without a copy of the regulation), where it explains:
On November 18, 2008, FTA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its school bus operations regulations... to provide clarification about the regulations in the context of the recent decision by the U.S. District Court... and generally, to update the regulation based on experience and industry practice.

...Although FTA received a good deal of support for the NPRM, many commenters opposed it. Generally, critics of the NPRM believed that FTA was attempting to restrict opportunities for its grantees to provide transportation, when in fact, FTA was attempting to allow its grantees to provide service it historically has allowed.

FTA finds, moreover, that many commenters misunderstood FTA's objectives to rectify a significantly outdated regulatory scheme.
So it looks like a rewrite of an existing regulation, which you, Mr Young, probably haven't even looked at. And your point is what, exactly? Is your story only that it was withdrawn following consultation? And? So?

But it get's worse. Here's his previous post:
The eighth in an occasional series that shines a bit of light on the regulatory state.

Today’s Regulation of the Day comes to us from the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.3 billion 2007 budget, 17,964 employees).

When an agency screws up really badly, political leaders will usually step in and pass some reforms. For example, the Immigration and Naturalization Service sent visa approval letters to two 9/11 hijackers – six months after the attacks. Congress responded by changing the agency’s name.

I haven’t heard of any outrageous bungling at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste. But I’m wondering; OSW is also changing its name. It is now ORCR – the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
According to the "regulation":
On January 18, 2009, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) was reorganized and changed its name to the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). The name change reflects the breadth of the responsibilities/authorities that Congress provided to EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the primary authorizing statute. ORCR has three divisions, which consolidate the operations of the six divisions under the OSW structure.
What was the problem again? How did your twisted tiny mind arrive at the subject of 9/11 from this?

This from a guy who probably takes out his stinking garbage to the kerbside each week so that the hated Government bureaucracy can cart it away and deal with it. How dare the Government say anything about how mixed up it is. Don't you know we've got a planet to screw up here? We, at the CEI, are working as hard as we can.

And while we're at it, how dare the Government tell people not to flush plastic diapers down the toilet either, because it clogs up the sewage system and floods into the road and the Government has to come out and deal with it. Because you, Mr Ryan Young, don't sound like the kind of guy who would even notice when someone cleaned up your shite.

Your purpose is just to create it.


Post a Comment

<< Home