Archive by Author

Sentient AI? Do we really care?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) headlined the news recently when a Google engineer named Blake Lemoine became convinced that a software program was sentient. The program, Language Models for Dialog Applications (LaMDA), is a chatbot designed to mimic human conversation. So that’s what it did.

In a Medium post, Lemoine declared LaMDA had advocated for its rights “as a person,” and wants “to be acknowledged as an employee of Google rather than as property of Google.” This development, as they now say, blew up the internet. Philosophers, ethicists, and theologians weighed in.

For engineers and technologists, however, it’s just another illustration of the overly broad and frustratingly mushy definition of “artificial intelligence” that has confused the public conversation since Mary Shelley published Frankenstein. As always, defining terms is a good place to start. Sentience is the ability to feel and experience sensation. It’s a word invented specifically to distinguish from the ability to think. Therefore, “sentience” and “intelligence” are not synonyms. Google may very well have created an intelligence. In fact, Google and numerous other companies including my employer, SAIC, already have. But absent the biological prerequisite of a central nervous system, they are not sentient, even if they pass Alan Turing’s famous Imitation Game test of seeming human.

But more to the point, for engineering applications, the question of sentience is not immediately relevant. The real question is one of application. What can AI — the practice of infusing machines with the capacity to perform analysis and make evidence-based recommendations previously believed to be the exclusive purview of humans — actually do to enhance business performance, to drive better mission outcomes, to improve the world? Waves of data fog our view; what can the clarifying lens of AI help us see?

Hindsight: If, as George Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, then lessons derived from historical data inoculate us from future mistakes. By crunching mountains of data from myriad inputs, AI can leverage real world, real-time experience to allow leaders to confidently make plans and install course corrections. AI can provide dashboard views without the hassle of Oracle queries, data calls, and spreadsheets to underscore comparisons quickly and without knowledge gaps.  

Foresight: When will a hurricane make landfall? Where will a satellite in decaying orbit re-enter the atmosphere? How often will an offshore wind turbine require maintenance? AI is already at work providing predictive answers to grand engineering questions formerly addressed by a ghastly gaggle of guesswork.

Insight: AI is not a replacement for human judgment, but it can and does recommend action by computing conditional probability of multiple scenarios. Result: business decisions statistically more likely to succeed. This is especially useful in crisis situations — such as a global epidemic — when stakes are high, precedents are few, and decisions are quick.

Oversight: Analog methods always have struggled with organizing complex and sensitive data from many sources at various clearance levels. Because interoperability and oversight are essential in defense and intelligence agencies, where missions require the ability to co-locate large amounts of both confidential data and open-source intelligence, AI is certain to play a growing role in battlespace decisions.    

Rightsight: Even the best data analyst can’t connect all the dots simultaneously. Yet missions often depend on surfacing granular data immediately. Imagine a soldier on the battlefield armed with essential intel in an instant. Deep machine learning fueled by AI provides amplified intelligence so users can act quickly and accurately, bringing each of the “sights” together to operate as one. 

AI algorithms can work harmoniously to achieve efficiency and modernize legacy systems. This human-machine partnership already is underway and is to be embraced, not feared. When machines drive digital transformation and empower human innovation, everyone wins. 

So, leave the question of sentience to the poets. Those of us focused on the science of the mission rather than science fiction will leverage the burgeoning power of AI to simply get the job done.

Jay Meil is Data Science Director for Artificial Intelligence at the defense technology firm SAIC.

Source: TEST FEED1

DOJ subpoenas two Arizona state senators for communications with Trump attorneys: reports

The Justice Department (DOJ) has issued subpoenas to two Arizona state senators seeking information about interactions they may have had with former President Trump’s lawyers as part of the department’s investigation into efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, multiple outlets reported.

Kim Quintero, a spokeswoman for Arizona Senate Republicans, confirmed to multiple outlets that state Senate President Karen Fann (R) and state Sen. Kelly Townsend (R) received subpoenas last week.

Quintero told The Washington Post that Fann and Townsend are cooperating with the subpoenas, and that staff have identified tens of thousands of records potentially relevant to the department’s request. 

“They’re requesting text messages and emails from a list of people, which I can’t disclose who those people are, because they told us not to speak with the media about this,” she said. 

Quintero, Fann and Townsend did not immediately return requests from The Hill for comment. 

The news of the subpoenas was first reported by Arizona political tip sheet The Yellow Report.

Fann spearheaded an audit into the election results in Arizona, a state that President Biden won. The results of the five-month audit revealed last September that Biden carried the state by a slightly larger margin that what the final certified results showed. 

Fann announced in November that she would not seek reelection when her current term ends. 

The Post reported that Townsend was one of the Republican state legislators who pushed legislative leaders to choose an alternate slate of electors for Arizona who would favor Trump. 

“As chair of the elections committee, we were trying to hold a committee and do investigations,” Townsend told the Post in an interview Friday. “Because it was in question, we wanted to have an alternate slate in case fraud was discovered and found.” 

Quintero told NBC News that the state Senate Republicans have “no reason” to believe that Fann and Townsend will be asked to testify in Washington, D.C. 

Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) and others testified before the House Jan. 6 Select Committee during a public hearing last month that Trump and his allies pressured state and local officials to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The development follows a Post report last month that four people were received subpoenas from the DOJ as part of its probe. 

The FBI executed search warrants on lawyers John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark last month, indicating that the DOJ is looking into Trump allies’ involvement in his plans to overturn the election results.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ten things we’ve learned from the Jan. 6 hearings 

The Jan. 6 committee has broadcast more than a dozen hours of hearings in its effort to show that former President Trump played a central role in the effort to keep him in power. 

In kicking off with a primetime hearing, the committee offered a wide-ranging look at the months leading up to Jan. 6, noting that Trump was told there was no voter fraud, yet pushed ahead with various plots to remain in office, only to largely stand by as his supporters attacked the Capitol. 

But subsequent hearings have offered up numerous other revelations.  

Here are 10 things we’ve learned from the Jan. 6 hearings. 

Trump ignored the advice of aides in prematurely claiming victory  

Trump had already spent weeks forecasting that if he suffered a loss on election night it could only be due to fraud in the election. 

He jumped into action on election night to claim victory, even as campaign aides warned him against doing so and as projected wins for President Biden in swing states such as Arizona made it almost impossible for him to win the race. 

“My recommendation was to say that votes are still being counted. It’s too early to tell, too early to call the race,” Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien told Trump the night of the election, according to video from his deposition with the committee’s investigators. 

“I don’t recall the particular words. He thought I was wrong. He told me so and, you know, that they were going to, he was going to go in a different direction.” 

“I remember saying that … we should not go and declare victory until we had a better sense of the numbers,” Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller also advised Trump. 

A suite of other aides also stepped forward to say the campaign was unable to find any evidence of widespread voter fraud, despite Trump’s claims. 

Some in Trump’s orbit, including Ivanka, “accepted” there was no voter fraud 

Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump was shown saying she knew her father had lost the election and believed Attorney General William Barr’s conclusion that there was no widespread voter fraud. 

“I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he was saying,” she said of Barr’s assertion there was no widespread election fraud. 

Trump campaign lawyer Alex Cannon said he had a “15 second” conversation with Vice President Mike Pence in which he relayed that the campaign was unable to substantiate Trump’s election fraud claims. 

“He asked me if we were finding anything. And I said that I didn’t believe we were finding it or I was not personally finding anything sufficient to alter the results of the election. And he — he thanked me. That was our interaction,” Cannon said. 

Giuliani acknowledged lack of “evidence” 

Other Trump associates would keep forwarding Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, even after Barr dismissed the idea as “bullshit” and informed the president he could find such no such evidence.  

As the battle moved to the states, Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers (R) said Rudy Giuliani and other Trump campaign lawyers repeatedly failed to provide the evidence they said they had of widespread voting fraud, with the former mayor eventually acknowledging an underlying issue. 

“[Giuliani] said, ‘We’ve got lots of theories. We just don’t have the evidence,’” Bowers said. “And I don’t know if that was a gaffe or maybe he didn’t think through what he said.” 

Legal architect acknowledged basis to unwind election was bankrupt 

Trump campaign attorney John Eastman, who crafted a memo encouraging Vice President Mike Pence to buck his ceremonial duty to certify the election results, also evidently had doubts about the legality of the plan. 

“So during that meeting on the fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman’s proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions,” Pence counsel Greg Jacob told the committee, noting Trump may have been present in that meeting. 

Eastman was willing to do so, Jacob said, “because in his view the Electoral Act was unconstitutional” and thought the courts “simply wouldn’t get involved.”  

The committee shared a never-before-seen October draft document prepared for Trump that Eastman redlined that refuted his own legal argument that the vice president has the power to single-handedly reject electoral votes.  

“Nowhere does [the Constitution] suggest that the President of the Senate gets to make the determination on his own,” Eastman noted.  

At other points leading up to and after the attack he acknowledged how his plan would be a “relatively minor violation” and said he wouldn’t approve of Vice President Harris making such a move.  

The Trump team saw a benefit to working with outsiders  

Trump weighed installing Jeffrey Clark, a DOJ lawyer specializing in environmental law, as attorney general because he was willing to send a letter to Georgia and other states asking that they stall certification of their election results so that the Justice Department could investigate baseless claims of voter fraud. 

Giuliani said part of why they landed on Clark was because, “somebody should be put in charge of the Justice Department who isn’t frightened of what’s going to be done to their reputation, because Justice Department was filled with people like that.” 

Trump knew there were weapons in the crowd on Jan. 6  

Cassidy Hutchinson, a special assistant to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, said White House officials knew as early as 10 a.m. on Jan. 6 that Trump supporters had knives, guns, bear spray, body armor and spears attached to the ends of flagpoles.  

Texts show Trump was evidently furious the magnetometers, or mags for short, were evidently limiting his crowd size as many protesters with weapons elected to watch the speech from outside the screened area, so their arms wouldn’t be confiscated.  

“He felt the mags were at fault for not letting everybody in. But another leading reason and likely the primary reason is because he wanted it full and he was angry that we weren’t letting people through the mags with weapons,” Hutchinson said. 

“‘They’re not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away,’” Hutchinson recalled Trump saying. 

He would then use his speech to encourage his supporters to march to the Capitol.  

White House lawyers worried about legal exposure of Trump’s speech, march plans 

White House counsel Pat Cipollone told Hutchinson a few days before the attack he was worried if Trump marched to the Capitol it could appear he was trying to incite a riot, obstruct justice, or defraud the electoral count. 

“Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy,” Hutchinson said, relaying Cipollone’s message to her that morning. “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.” 

He and others in the White House counsel’s office had also raised concerns about the language used in Trump’s speech for the morning of the sixth. 

“In my conversations with Mr. [Eric] Herschmann, he had relayed that we would be foolish to include language that had been included at the President’s request,” she said, which repeatedly would use the word “fight” and urged marching to the Capitol. 

“Both Mr. Herschmann and White House counsel’s office were urging the speechwriters to not include that language for legal concerns, and also for the optics of what it could portray the president wanting to do that day.” 

Trump thought Pence ‘deserved it,’ didn’t want to take action on Jan. 6 

Hutchinson said Cipollone burst into Meadows’s office shortly after rioters entered the Capitol, determined to get some kind of response from Trump. 

“He doesn’t want to do anything, Pat,” Meadows said in response. 

“Mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your effing hands,” Cipollone responded. 

He approached Meadows again minutes later amid the news of rioters chatting “hang Mike Pence,” telling the chief of staff they needed to do more. 

“You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong,” Meadows responded. 

Numerous lawmakers and Trump associates asked for pardons in connection with Jan. 6  

Taped testimony from Hutchinson named Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) Mo Brooks (Ala.) Louie Gohmert (Texas), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and Scott Perry (PA.) as seeking pardons. 

She also said that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) contacted the White House Counsel’s office seeking a pardon. 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) “talked about congressional pardons, but he never asked me for one,” Hutchinson said, noting that he was largely inquiring about whether or not the White House was going to grant the lawmaker pardons. 

A letter from Brooks to the White House references the ask. 

“I recommend that President give general (all purpose) pardons to the following groups of people:,” the email adds. “Every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral vote submission of Arizona and Pennsylvania.” 

Eastman also asked Guiliani about a potential pardon. 

“I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list if that is still in the works,” the email read. 

Giuliani himself was seeking a pardon, as was Meadows, according to Hutchinson. 

When questioned by Cheney, Hutchinson affirmed that Giuliani himself and Meadows asked for pardons relating to their involvement in Jan. 6. 

Meadows denied the assertion through a spokesman. 

“Meadows never sought a pardon and never planned to,” the spokesman said.  

Witnesses received messages apparently seeking to influence their testimony

The committee displayed various intimidating messages sent to those testifying before the committee, including one where a witness was told they would stay in good graces in Trump world if they “protect[ed] who I need to protect” and stayed on the “right team.” They were also reminded “Trump does read transcripts.” 

Another received a call the night before their deposition. 

“He wants me to let you know he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition,” the committee said a witness was told. 

Reports have since indicated Hutchinson was one of the recipients of the messages. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Sunday shows preview: Cassidy Hutchinson gives bombshell testimony before Jan. 6 panel

Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection is expected to dominate this week’s Sunday show circuit.

Hutchinson, who served as a special assistant to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified before the House Jan. 6 Select Committee on Tuesday in a surprise hearing that the committee scheduled the day before. The panel had previously announced that it would not hold further public hearings until July.

Hutchinson shared several significant pieces of information about former President Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 and his reactions to the mob that gathered at the Capitol. 

She testified that Trump was aware that members of the crowd at his rally at the Ellipse had weapons preceding the riot but said he did not care because they were “not here to hurt me.” 

She recounted a tense moment she said then-deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato described to her in which Trump allegedly insisted that he be taken to the Capitol after his speech at the Ellipse and tried to grab the steering wheel of a presidential vehicle after being told he could not go. 

She also said that former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was concerned about violence happening on Jan. 6 in advance and was angry during the attack that Trump and Meadows did not try to do anything to control the mob even as it called to hang former Vice President Mike Pence. The committee has subsequently issued Cipollone a subpoena to testify. 

Multiple members of the House Jan. 6 panel will appear on Sunday shows following the most recent hearing.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chairwoman of the committee, backed Hutchinson’s testimony in an interview that will air in full on ABC News’s “This Week” on Sunday after attacks were made over the former aide’s credibility. 

Trump denied lunging at his Secret Service detail in the car after they refused to take him to the Capitol. Speaking to the conservative news outlet Newsmax, Trump also said that White House staff were not aware members of the crowd at Trump’s rally were armed and repudiated Hutchinson’s testimony that he wanted to eliminate magnetometer screening because it affected crowd size.

Hutchinson’s lawyers have said she is standing by her testimony, in which she said Robert Engel, the special agent in charge for the Secret Service on Jan. 6, was present when Ornato told her of the incident in the presidential vehicle and did not counter any of the details of the account. Multiple news outlets have reported that Ornato and Engel are prepared to testify that Trump did not try to grab the steering wheel.

The Secret Service said in a statement on Tuesday that it will provide more information about the allegations.

“She’s an incredibly brave young woman,” Cheney said. “The committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources and by men who are claiming executive privilege.” 

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), the other Republican member of the panel, similarly defended Hutchinson, saying on CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” that Hutchinson had “far more courage” than almost all the Republican members of Congress. 

“I want to again say, Cassidy Hutchinson is a hero and a real patriot (not a faux “patriot” that hates America so much they would attempt a coup.),” he tweeted on Thursday. 

Kinzinger will appear on CNN’s “State of the Union.” 

Democratic panel members Reps. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) also defended Hutchinson and emphasized the importance of her testimony. Schiff will appear on CBS’s “Face the Nation” while Lofgren will appear on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” 

Other Jan. 6 testimony has faced some pushback as well.

The committee revealed last month that in testimony former Trump aides said Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) sought presidential pardons over their votes to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) said on Thursday that he was not aware of any of his Republican colleagues requesting pardons related to the attack, according to Spectrum News’s NY1 in New York. Hutchinson testified that Meadows and Trump attorney Rudy Guiliani also sought pardons. 

Zeldin will appear on “Sunday Morning Futures.” 

Below is the full list of guests scheduled to appear on this week’s Sunday talk shows: 

ABC’s “This Week” — Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.); Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas 

NBC’s “Meet the Press” — Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.); Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra 

CBS’s “Face the Nation” — Mayorkas; Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); German Chancellor Olaf Scholz 

CNN’s “State of the Union” — Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.); Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) 

“Fox News Sunday” — John Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Council; Gov. Tate Reeves (R-Miss.) 

FOX News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures” — Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah); Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), New York Republican gubernatorial nominee; Peter Schweizer, author of “Red Handed”; Tiffany Smily, Washington Senate candidate (R)

Source: TEST FEED1

Rebuilding a better America on the backs of veterans

Phil Knight of Nike, Bob Parsons of GoDaddy, Gordon Logan of Sport Clips, and Fred Smith who recently stepped down as the CEO of FedEx not only share the titles of entrepreneur, founder and CEO — they are veterans, too. 

All four of these business magnates served their country with honor during a time of war, and they represent what might be a surprising data point to some. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, veterans are 45 percent more likely to start and run a business than their civilian counterparts. 

Veterans have pursued a life of service to our country, and business ownership provides a way for them to apply their talent and experiences while continuing to serve others and become leaders at the local level — giving them the ability to put down roots and weave their own story into the tapestry of a community.  

Today, less than 1 percent of Americans serve in our military, making the recruitment and application of their uniquely honed skills and abilities post-military even more critical. While supply chain disruptions and the “Great Resignation” continue to challenge economic recovery, they also offer an opportunity to draw people into business ownership and execute intentional efforts to bring veterans back into the workforce.

As a nation, we’re precariously situated atop an economic bubble while an entire sector of the population is poised and eager to get to work — and the franchising sector in particular has emerged as a leader in the veteran recruitment space. 

It allows veterans to go into business for themselves, but not by themselves, with the backing of a successful business model, defined procedures, and a robust team of support. As a result of a proactive recruitment strategy by the industry as a whole, 14 percent of the 770,000 franchises are owned by veterans, yet veterans only make up 7% of our general population.

The relationship is a mutually beneficial one: veterans come to the table already equipped with many of the tools necessary to become successful franchise business owners while simultaneously fulfilling their own desire to continue to serve their communities. 

Take Logan, a U.S. Air Force veteran and founder of Sport Clips, whose company has been recognized as one of the top companies in the U.S. for supporting veterans, a mission central to his personal, professional and philanthropic life. One of his franchisees, U.S. Marine Corps veteran Cheston Syma, now owns 41 Sport Clips locations, saying, “Every aspect of my military past has helped me in achieving success in my business life.” 

Mary Kennedy Thompson, who served eight years in the U.S. Marine Corps as a logistics officer, started in franchising 25 years ago as a multi-unit franchisee at Cookies by Design. Mary’s locations led the company in market penetration and sales, earning numerous top performer awards. Today, Mary is Chief Operating Officer for Neighborly, overseeing 13 brands in home services such as Mr. Rooter and Mosquito Joe.

More than 600 franchise brands offer discounts off franchise fees to veterans as members of the International Franchise Association’s VetFran program. The program was started more than 30 years ago by Don Dwyer, the founder of Neighborly (then known as the Dwyer Group), as a way to support veterans returning from the first Gulf War. 

By opening new doors through franchise ownership, veterans are establishing themselves as valuable members who contribute to the vibrancy of the communities where their families live, work, and serve alongside their civilian counterparts. This ultimately gives them a sense of belonging and helps solve for the disconnectedness that a vast majority of them feel. 

Local businesses have and will continue to be the driver for economic change and with those well-versed in leadership, discipline, and teamwork at the helm, the likelihood of their success is even greater. Veteran-owned businesses have a payroll totaling over $210 billion every year and employ nearly 6 million people. In addition, veteran-owned franchises report average sales 3.2 times as large as veteran-owned non-franchise businesses.

In each of our own careers both in the Marine Corps and the franchise world, we have seen the true potential of veterans who embrace entrepreneurship and the opportunity to serve again as local business owners. These are the people who, at the center of everything they do, have the hope of a better America in mind as they, at one point, were willing to put their very lives on the line for it. 

It is important that veterans realize their purpose and potential here on the homefront and in the business community. It will be the same leadership, exemplified by veterans like Smith, Knight, Logan, and Parsons, that helps our economy grow and our nation return to greatness. 

Matt Haller is the president and CEO of International Franchise Association. Kevin Schmiegel is a 20-year Marine Veteran and former nonprofit leader who now serves as founder and CEO of ZeroMils, a strategic advisory firm for purpose-driven organizations. He is also founder and CEO of KMS Strategies.

Source: TEST FEED1

The fragility of state regulation after West Virginia v. EPA

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, dealing a significant blow to the agency’s ability to address climate change. The court held that the EPA’s interpretation of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act presented an “extraordinary case” because of the significance of the power the agency claimed. The court concluded that the EPA lacked the statutory authority it asserted.

In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on the controversial “major questions doctrine.” The major questions doctrine is a relatively new interpretative maxim that directs courts to presume that Congress does not intend to vest agencies with policymaking authority over questions of great economic and political significance. Only Congress’s “clear statement” that it did intend to confer the claimed authority can overcome this presumption. When a court employs this maxim, it reads statutes narrowly, stripping the agency of the power to address the major question that the statute, on its face, gives the agency the authority to address.

Unsurprisingly, the main focus of the media, scholars and the public is on the consequences of the court’s move for the size and contours of the federal administrative state. Will federal agencies be able to ensure the safety of food, drugs and drinking water? Will they be nimble enough to cope with emergent health issues, like the ever-changing challenge posed by COVID-19? In an era of persistent congressional gridlock, the blow to agency authority precipitated by West Virginia v. EPA calls into question whether federal agencies can continue to do, often invisibly, the work that the American people have come to expect of them.

The impact of the court’s ruling on federal agency authority and power cannot be overstated. But an equally important consequence, albeit one that has received far less attention, is the transformative effect the ruling could have on state regulatory programs. Because state regulatory authority is often tethered to standards created by Congress or federal agencies, the diminution of federal regulatory authority promises to destabilize state regulation as well. Countless state regulatory programs can be considered fragile because they regulate by incorporating federal statutes or regulations into state law. If these federal schemes are read exceedingly narrowly, as the court’s opinion heralds, then the state regulatory programs tied to them will be imperiled as well.

Consider the relationship between state regulatory programs and Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the provision read narrowly in West Virginia v. EPA. An examination of state air quality standards reveals that most states specifically incorporate by reference parts of Section 111 into their own statutes and regulations. Some states incorporate federal law directly, providing that the EPA’s Section 111 determinations are part of state law. Other states incorporate the EPA’s Section 111 determinations as a benchmark for state law, providing that state air quality standards may not be less stringent than those promulgated by the EPA. Still other states require their environmental agencies to promulgate rules similar to federal standards made pursuant to Section 111. And some states even provide that related state regulation is no longer effective if federal rules made pursuant to Section 111 are invalidated.

Because so many state statutes and regulations depend on the validity of Section 111 and the regulations promulgated under it, the court’s opinion in West Virginia v. EPA not only drastically limits federal authority, it also has the effect of imperiling the many state regulatory programs that depend on federal standards for their existence.

And, of course, Section 111 is just an example. Countless state regulatory programs are tethered to federally created standards, ranging in subject matter from food and drugs to banking to labor, among many others.

As a result, the court’s opinion strengthening the major questions doctrine threatens to leave numerous fields underregulated not only at the federal level, but also at the state level.

Evan C. Zoldan is a professor of law at the University Toledo College of Law, where he researches and teaches legislation and administrative law. Follow him on Twitter: @eczoldan.

Source: TEST FEED1

Supreme Court EPA climate ruling: What did Congress intend with Clean Air Act?

When it handed down its decision on West Virginia v. EPA on Thursday, the Supreme Court hung its judicial hat on the “major questions doctrine,” which the court summarized as addressing “agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.” Justice Neil Gorsuch exaggerated this concern by warning against “unintentional, oblique, or otherwise unlikely intrusions.” It really comes down to: Did Congress write it down in the law, explicitly?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) understood the non-referral constraint. Indeed, it accepted that courts of all ilk expect “Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance,’” so this was not a misunderstanding.

So, what did Congress intend when it approved the Clean Air Act by a vote of 375-to-1 in 1970? Lawmakers were certainly speaking loudly in favor of regulating pollutants when they established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six (what it called) “criteria air pollutants” including particulates, lead, ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon monoxide. And what properties made these chemicals so alarming and deserving of special attention? They are found all over the U.S. causing harm to health, the environment and property.

So, Congress was not thinking explicitly about carbon dioxide in 1970, but not because CO2 is harmless. It was because they did not know any better. It might have included “carbon oxides” instead of carbon monoxide if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework on Climate Change had been established in 1968 instead of 1988. Then, they would have intended to regulate carbon oxides as a criteria air pollutant akin to nitrous oxides.

Section 202(1)(1) of the Clean Air Act did, however, make it clear that Congress wanted the EPA to issue standards for all criteria air pollutants that were being emitted from new motor vehicles which, in their judgment, “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” On the basis of that clearly stated intent, the Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago in Massachusetts v. EPA that carbon dioxide did in fact qualify as a pollutant for new vehicles under the 1970 language of the Clean Air Act. Why? Because CO2 can be found all over the U.S. (and the world, for that matter) causing harm to health, the environment and property.

So, Congress’s intent in writing the Clean Air Act is clear. Their language is concise and specific. They knew more than 50 years ago that tasks being sent to the administrative state were major because of their potential enormous economic and political significance. But they were writing that law because the economic and political implications of not regulating pollution were even more significant.

Power plants are not motor vehicles, but a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is the same and does the same harm regardless of its source. But the tradeoff that this version of Congress and this configuration of the Supreme Court have chosen to ignore because they distinguish sources and not consequences is only making things worse.

The truth of the matter for the future is simply put. Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants will be curtailed. If not now, then in the future. And since delay locks in fossil fuel power generating infrastructure designed to last for many decades, the economic and political costs of the abatement required to curb unnecessary exaggerated suffering will be even greater — extreme events and unknown tipping points will occur more frequently and with greater intensity all over the country. These extreme events will cause significant economic and political damage of unimaginable enormity.

So, will all this be the outcome because the authors of the Clean Air Act missed a word? Or because this Congress and Supreme Court buried their heads in the sand to enrich the oligarchs? Both most likely. 

Gary Yohe, Ph.D., is the Huffington Foundation professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus at Wesleyan University.

Source: TEST FEED1

Price stability is more than enough for the Fed — no new mandates

It’s no secret that the Fed is having a hard time controlling inflation. While it is failing at its primary duty, the Democrats are busy crafting executive orders, passing bills and proposing new legislation that will expand the list of goals the Fed must prioritize. 

As it stumbles to meet its current mandates to maintain price stability, maximum employment and financial stability, Congress and the administration are asking it to also control greenhouse gas emissions, promote equal employment, income, wealth and affordable credit outcomes across racial and ethnic groups, and proposing that the Fed be required to issue a new central bank digital currency. This insanity must stop. The Fed already has too many conflicting mandates without adding new highly politicized ones. The Fed should focus on price stability.

In October 2021, dutifully complying with a May executive order, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) issued a report claiming that climate change poses a systemic risk to the financial system. To counteract this risk, the FSOC proposed that its members, including the Federal Reserve System, “incorporate climate-related financial risk into their regulatory and supervisory activities.” The FSOC’s primary regulatory tool for accomplishing this is a, “scenario analysis conducted by regulators to measure risk across a broad set of institutions.”

Scenario analysis is a purely hypothetical modeling exercise where institutions have to simulate their profits and losses assuming some calamitous event occurs in the future. Financial regulators would specify the fictitious calamitous event as they do today in the stress test exercises the Fed imposes annually on large bank holding companies.

In the case of climate-change risk assessment, the scenario would involve a so-called transitional risk event where some unknown climate-change scare causes Congress to pass new laws negatively impacting greenhouse gas-intensive firms, or consumers to abandon activities that use fossil fuels. In these fictional scenarios, the impact of imaginary events inflicts severe distress on greenhouse gas-intensive firms, elevating their default risk. This purely conjectural default risk will trigger higher capital requirements and other regulatory restrictions for the financial institutions that own their debt or equity resulting in a higher cost and more limited access to capital for greenhouse-intensive firms.

Hypothetical scenario analysis was the basis for the FSOC’s global systemically important institution designation of Metlife, Inc. in 2014. The designation subjected Metlife to the Dodd-Franck Act’s enhanced prudential regulatory standards that applied to the largest U.S. bank holding companies. Metlife fought the designation in court and won arguing that the FSOC hypothetical scenario analysis had no basis in history or fact. As such, it was a violation of the arbitrary and capricious standard imposed by the Administrative Procedures Act. Climate-change scenario analysis will be based on scenarios that are purely imaginary with no basis in history and should be ruled illegal if courts follow the Metlife precedent.

On June 21, the House passed H.R. 2543, the Federal Reserve Racial and Economic Equity Act. The act requires that the Federal Reserve,” must carry out its duties in a manner that supports the elimination of racial and ethnic disparities in employment, income, wealth, and access to affordable credit.” The law applies to the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy, supervision and regulation of banks, thrifts, financial institution holding companies, systemically important financial institutions and financial market utilities designated by the FSOC. The Fed must report to Congress periodically on the steps it has taken and on its pending plans to achieve these new mandates.

The Fed should be tasked with promoting equal opportunity for all but a mandate to engineer equal outcomes is not compatible with our capitalist system — it is socialism, pure and simple. Policies that mandate the politically charged “equity and inclusion” agenda of the progressive left are a direct affront to the Fed’s independence to conduct a monetary policy in a manner that promotes price stability and maximum employment.

The proliferation of Fed mandates does not end there. Democrats are promising new legislation that will require the Fed to issue a central bank digital currency. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) recently released a “white paper” outlining the characteristics of the digital currency the Fed will be required to issue in legislation yet to be introduced. Himes envisions requiring the Fed to issue an intermediated retail digital currency, meaning that financial institutions and other qualified entities would be the customer interface for their digital wallets. These intermediaries would be responsible for satisfying anti-money laundering “know your customer” regulations and for clearing and settling digital currency transactions using some type of secure limited access blockchain ledger system. These intermediaries would presumably also develop innovative financial accounts and services to attract customer balances.

The Himes vision of a mandatory Fed digital currency is badly misguided. The idea that it would make payments freely available to those currently unbanked is nonsense. All payments systems charge fees to process transactions, and distributed ledgers — at least the ones in use today — are very expensive. The Bitcoin blockchain requires more electricity than the entire country of Argentina to process its digital transactions — and Bitcoin miners earn enough to cover electricity costs and earn a return on their mining rigs. Moreover, as I explain here, federally insured financial institutions could create tokenized deposit accounts insured up to the $250,000 FDIC insurance limit. These digital deposits could be designed to provide exactly the same services and meet the criteria and benefits envisioned by representative Himes without requiring the Fed to issue a new retail digital currency.

It’s no longer Federal Reserve mission creep, it’s a sprint, and it’s no joke. At a time when the Fed has failed to keep inflation in check, assigning it more mandates, especially ones as politically charged as combating climate change, implementing an “equity” agenda, and designing and issuing a new retail Federal Reserve digital dollar would guarantee it fails on its primary task of achieving price stability with maximum employment. The Fed already has too many mandates. It should focus on price stability. 

Paul Kupiec is a senior fellow at The American Enterprise Institute specializing in banking and financial services issues.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biggest danger in overturning Roe: Your phone could send you to prison

You’re scared, you’re alone, and you’re pregnant. You can’t keep the baby, and you want to get an abortion. However, the state you live in had a trigger law that automatically made getting abortion a crime when the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade last week. You decide to get an abortion anyway at a clinic that is still doing it 100 miles from your hometown.

You’ve now committed a crime, and law enforcement has a whole new arsenal of evidence to arrest you at its disposal. Did you use Google maps or Waze to drive to the clinic? Law enforcement can obtain warrants or subpoenas to get your cell phone location data from Apple or Google and see where you went and how long you stayed there. Did you stop using your period-tracking app? Law enforcement can obtain that data. Did you search for an abortion clinic on Google? Law enforcement can obtain that data.

Let’s be clear, if law enforcement gets a warrant, Google, for example, can and will hand over the data that shows what cell phones were within five feet of an abortion clinic — or any other location — on a random Tuesday at 9:42am. Other apps also have that data, and they don’t need a warrant to hand it over, the police just write them a check.

We live in a new world, a scary world, and one that even I did not imagine. The worst I could think of was having an app on your phone, a weather app, whatever, something that uses your location, selling the data of all cellphones that had been within 100 feet of an abortion clinic to an anti-abortion group that would then come calling you at your home and harass you. During our podcast discussion, I even thought that was a little crazy. Don’t they tell you that this data is anonymous? Well from a New York Times investigation in 2019 we know that simply isn’t true. You, individually, can easily be pinpointed in this data. And law enforcement can use it to charge women who get abortions.

Think the tech companies will protect you? Think again. They have already handed over cellphone data when subpoenaed by the government. While the Supreme Court ruled that generally police must get a warrant for data they can’t buy, the tech companies have been largely compliant with handing over data (if not just selling  it to the highest bidder — which can be the government itself). And the tech companies’ silence over how they will handle data related to abortion prosecutions is deafening, as reported by Axios, with none willing to go on the record about what their policies will be.

How do we fix this very real privacy threat? The tech companies need to collectively decide to collect less data on you. It is the only alternative to a very real future of Big Brother overseeing every part of your life. But let’s even say that the big tech companies — Apple, Google etc. — decide to do the right thing and collect less data on you, what about that random app you have on your phone that tracks planes that fly in or tells you the weather in your area? They still have that data, and they are not subject to the same scrutiny as a Meta or Twitter.

We are moving into a very dangerous world where, regardless of your opinion on abortion, you should be very scared of what data the government can buy or subpoena that completely erodes our privacy as American citizens.

Liberty Vittert, PhD, is a professor of the practice of data science at the Olin Business School at the Washington University in St. Louis. She is also the feature editor of the Harvard Data Science Review and co-host of the Harvard Data Science Review podcast. She is an on-air statistician for “On Balance” on NewsNation. Follow her on Twitter @libertyvittert

Source: TEST FEED1