Angry Bear posters and readers have commented on the striking shrinking of regulation in housing (HUD), finance (OCC, SEC) , taxes (IRS enforcement), and Safety (FDA). In conjunction are proposals to make huge vaguely defined powers available to use the military for domestic purposes that includes “other conditions” as a cause for use, and the FED to claim more sweeping interventions as yet to be determined. My head spins from the re-designing of federal powers, and the pre-emption of state rules.
OMB carries the following:
According to a recent paper from the Center for Progressive Reform, the administration has been fighting for preemption on two fronts. “One form has been to intervene on the side of industry in tort litigation by the filing of amicus briefs arguing that the plaintiff ‘s claims against the corporate defendant are preempted by the agency’s regulations or its general authority over the health or safety matters at issue,” the paper argues.
The Bush administration has also tried, and been largely successful, in writing regulations that expressly preempt tort law, according to the paper. Federal agencies, including the FDA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, have inserted preemption language into the preamble of regulations.
Under Bush, agencies have been inserting the language at the last minute, after the public comment period has closed. In the case of an FDA regulation on drug labels, “FDA deprived most of the public — including state officials, Congress members, and interested individuals and citizen groups — of any chance to weigh in on the matter before the rule was finalized.”
(bolding is mine)
Now, can readers claim a political orientation first, and then explain why this rather across the board process bothers you or not?