|
Federal
Register Watch by Mike Powers July
21 - 25, 2003
The Federal
Register is the official daily publication for Rules, Proposed Rules,
and Notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as Executive
Orders and other Presidential Documents.
This column attempts to summarize the highlights (or lowlights)
of the Federal Register during the preceding week. Instructions
for subscribing to the Federal Register can be found at the end of the
column. JULY
24, 2003: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) –
DISADVANTAGED ENTERPRISE BUSINESS PROGRAM This
rule mandates that a certain percentage of taxpayer-funded EPA grants
and cooperative agreements are directed toward business entities run by
individuals who are deemed “socially or economically disadvantaged” (women and minorities). According
to the EPA, this proposed rule “reflects EPA's efforts to ensure that the
compelling government interest of remedying past and current racial
discrimination through the use of agency-wide DBE procurement
objectives at EPA is served by a narrowly-tailored program.” In
order to remedy the government-approved discriminations of the past, the
EPA makes new rules to ensure that government-authorized discrimination (via socioeconomic quotas) will
continue well into the future. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-18002.htm INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION (ITA) – The
ITA imposed “antidumping” duties ranging from 36% to 63% on frozen fish fillet imports from Vietnam
after determining that they were being sold at “less than fair value.”
The plaintiffs in the case include the Catfish Farmers of America
and several individual catfish processors, who petitioned the government
for the protectionist tariffs against their foreign competitors. Every
government-imposed tariff has winners and losers.
In this case, domestic catfish producers benefit from the
protectionist tariffs that reduce competition.
Meanwhile, American consumers are compelled to pay artificially
higher prices for fish products at the market.
It
is no surprise that so many companies seek government assistance to
protect their business.
It is much easier to get the government to reduce your
competition by imposing protective tariffs and subsidies than it is to
offer a better (or less expensive) good or service than your rival.
Protectionist
policies are great vote-buying schemes.
The beneficiaries of government-induced tariffs or subsidies are
always more willing to fight for the involuntary largesse than the
victims (taxpayers or consumers) are willing to oppose it.
President
Bush’s effort to garner political support from the American steel
industry by imposing tariffs on imported steel is an excellent example
of vote-buying protectionist policies. It would be more accurate to refer to the ITA as the “International Anti-Trade Administration,” since they do far more to obstruct free trade than to encourage it. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-18860.htm JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION OFFICE –
GRANTS AVAILABLE FOR “GIRLS STUDY GROUP” The
purpose of the Girls Study Group
is “to develop a sound theoretical and empirical foundation to guide
future development, testing, and dissemination of strategies to
effectively prevent and reduce girls' involvement in delinquency and
violence and reduce the negative consequences of such involvement.” That’s
psychological techno-babble for
“spending taxpayer money on useless grants that provide jobs for
government researchers while providing policymakers with propaganda to
promote their social engineering plans.” http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-18760.htm JULY
25, 2003: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION – This
waiver grants ticket vending machine manufacturers a non-availability
waiver to comply with Buy America requirements.
Manufacturers sought the waiver since there is no U.S.
manufacturer of an equivalent bill-handling unit. The
Buy American Act was originally passed in 1933 to “encourage”
federal agencies to buy domestically manufactured products over foreign
goods.
A domestically manufactured product is defined as a product made
in the United States and comprised of at least 50 percent American-made
components. While
the Buy American Act does not prohibit federal agencies from buying
foreign products, it discourages their acquisition by imposing an “evaluation
penalty” to their cost! According
to regulation, a Contracting Officer evaluating offers for a civilian
agency must add a 6% evaluation
penalty to an offer of foreign-made products, or add a 12%
penalty if the competing domestic vendor is a small business or
operates in a labor surplus area. Defense agencies add a 50%
penalty to the foreign offer! Buy
America is nothing more than a federal subsidy to domestic
manufacturers.
By paying more for goods simply because they are manufactured
domestically, taxpayers are saddled with a bigger tax bill.
This takes more money out of the pockets of consumers – money
that would have been spent or invested in the economy.
Buy
America does not create jobs, as the policy’s supporters claim.
In reality, it is a job destroyer. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-19012.htm
To
subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic
mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov
and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the
list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
|
||
