tomder55
Mar 7, 2023, 04:58 AM
Congress in a bipartisan act decided that they wanted to subsidize American microchip manufacturing . Whether that is a good idea or not is not the question. It is what it is . Congress holds the purse strings and decided this is a national security issue. So they allocated $280 billion to bring hi tech manufacturing home from over seas .
The CHIPS and Science Act: What is it and what is in it? | McKinsey (https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/the-chips-and-science-act-heres-whats-in-it)
Congress wrote this up as a straight subsidy which is kinda silly . You are inviting regulatory interpretation . Not surprisingly ;the administration is accepting the invitation.
Former Guv of RI Gina Raimundo is the Commerce Sec. She has decided that she will use unconstitutional regulatory power to essentially rewrite the law to appeal to the administration's lefty ideas . She basically said that if Congress wasn't going to do what they should've done ;we are going to do it for them.
As an example ; she is adding requirements that the companies that get the subsidies supply social services like day care ;subject to government inspection to assure they are up to standard ...whatever that means ,
Another add on is sharing profits ;again not in the plain text of the bill signed by Clueless Joe.
The Chips Act Becomes Industrial Social Policy - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/chips-act-subsidies-progressives-industrial-policy-gina-raimondo-joe-manchin-7da07403)
All these provisos that are being added on costs $$$ in implementation and enforcement . That means that a good portion of the $280 billion will not go to what Congress intended ....chip manufacturing .
SCOTUS in recent years came up with what is called the 'Major Questions Doctrine' which challenges what was previously held as the standard ;the 'Chevron Doctrine'. The Chevron Doctrine said that the courts should give huge deference to regulatory decisions. The Major Questions Doctrine came out of the decision of 'West Virginia v. EPA' limits regulatory digression of interpretation .Regulations that support the intent of the law are acceptable and Constitutional. Regulations that rewrite the law or go against the clear intent of the law are not .
This is the key issue in both this and the student loan cases . Any regulation such as those proposed by Raimundo should immediately be challenged .
The CHIPS and Science Act: What is it and what is in it? | McKinsey (https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/the-chips-and-science-act-heres-whats-in-it)
Congress wrote this up as a straight subsidy which is kinda silly . You are inviting regulatory interpretation . Not surprisingly ;the administration is accepting the invitation.
Former Guv of RI Gina Raimundo is the Commerce Sec. She has decided that she will use unconstitutional regulatory power to essentially rewrite the law to appeal to the administration's lefty ideas . She basically said that if Congress wasn't going to do what they should've done ;we are going to do it for them.
As an example ; she is adding requirements that the companies that get the subsidies supply social services like day care ;subject to government inspection to assure they are up to standard ...whatever that means ,
Another add on is sharing profits ;again not in the plain text of the bill signed by Clueless Joe.
The Chips Act Becomes Industrial Social Policy - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/chips-act-subsidies-progressives-industrial-policy-gina-raimondo-joe-manchin-7da07403)
All these provisos that are being added on costs $$$ in implementation and enforcement . That means that a good portion of the $280 billion will not go to what Congress intended ....chip manufacturing .
SCOTUS in recent years came up with what is called the 'Major Questions Doctrine' which challenges what was previously held as the standard ;the 'Chevron Doctrine'. The Chevron Doctrine said that the courts should give huge deference to regulatory decisions. The Major Questions Doctrine came out of the decision of 'West Virginia v. EPA' limits regulatory digression of interpretation .Regulations that support the intent of the law are acceptable and Constitutional. Regulations that rewrite the law or go against the clear intent of the law are not .
This is the key issue in both this and the student loan cases . Any regulation such as those proposed by Raimundo should immediately be challenged .