 |
|
|
|||||
At a press conference in the Oval Office earlier this month, Elon Muska billionaire who is not, at least formally, the President of the United Stateswas asked how the Department of Government Efficiency manages potential conflicts of interest to ensure “accountability and transparency.” In response, Musk suggested that simply opening a browser tab would assuage the reporters concerns. “We post our actions to the DOGE handle on X, and to the DOGE website,” he said. “So all of our actions are maximally transparent.” One problem with this assertion: At the time, the DOGE.gov domain was more or less empty, an oversight that someone in Musks orbit had to hastily rectify. Now, nested beneath tabs on a white-on-black homepage is a “wall of receipts” tallying DOGEs alleged cost savings as it attempts to hollow out the federal government. (These “receipts” reportedly included 10 figures worth of math errors shortly after the wall debuted.) Other tabs provide information about the salaries of the approximately 2.3 million federal employees Musk is trying to fire (data borrowed from the Office of Personnel Management) and agency-by-agency information about federal spending (figures taken from publicly available Treasury Department reports). There is no better distillation of Musks brand of “efficiency” than tasking underlings with building sloppy, dark-mode versions of free government resources that already exist. The “Regulations” tab, however, reveals the true nature of Musks project, which is not to deliver tax relief to working people, but to free wealthy corporations from pesky regulatory oversight. The page abandons dollars-and-cents metrics for something different: an Unconstitutionality Index that divides the number of regulations enacted by federal agencies by the number of statutes passed by Congress each year. Users can scroll down to see how many regulations these agencies”unelected bureaucrats,” as DOGE calls themhave published, and even how many hundreds of thousands of words those regulations run. The clear implication is that the Code of Federal Regulations has become far too complicatedperhaps too complicated to be constitutionaland that only the fully optimized business brains at DOGE have the vision, courage, and managerial savvy necessary to wrangle this unruly mess. DOGEs war on the very concept of regulation demonstrates just how little “innovation” Musk and his henchteenagers are bringing to the putative task of streamlining the federal governments workflow. Corporate interests, eager to shed even modest limitations on their ability to pay out executive bonuses and shareholder dividends, have spent decades arguing that regulations are unauthorized exercises of legislative power. At DOGE, Musk is simply repackaging these bog-standard, free-enterprise talking points with the trappings of Silicon Valley technobabble. In his position as this countrys de facto copresident, the more regulations he manages to scuttle, the more he and his cronies companies stand to profit. To be clear, the regulations that Musk is demonizing here are simply the rules by which the executive branch, at Congresss direction, implements and enforces the laws that Congress passes. For example, when lawmakers passed the Consumer Product Safety Act, a 1972 law that aims to “protect consumers against unreasonable risk of injury from hazardous products,” they tasked a federal agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, with spelling out the nitty-gritty rules for making different kinds of products safe. The logic here is pretty intuitive: Setting standards for, say, the maximum amount of force necessary to open a refrigerator door from the inside is technical, complex work best left to mechanical engineers and child safety researchers, not, say, Marjorie Taylor Greene. In a sprawling country that is home to 340 million people, this system of delegation from professional politicians to subject-matter experts is what keeps air breathable, water potable, and kitchen appliances from becoming death traps for small children playing hide-and-seek. But it necessarily imposes costs on industry: Compliance with rules entails spending at least some money and forgoing at least some potential profit. As a result, the notion that regulation is evil and foolish has become an article of faith among pro-business groups and the Republican politicians they support, who argue that the proliferation of unnecessary, duplicative, burdensome rules stifles innovation and stunts economic growth. Opponents often cite the increase in volume of rules over time as proof of their inherent illegitimacy, a sentiment the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist once summarized using a memorably unsettling metaphor. “I dont want to abolish government,” he said. “I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The “Unconstitutionality Index” on DOGEs website is a fixture of the anti-regulation movement, created by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that recently celebrated “40 years of eliminating excessive regulation and unleashing human potential.” (Several CEI staffers are listed as contributors to Project 2025, the policy “blueprint” drafted by conservative groups in anticipation of President Donald Trumps reelection.) Organizations like CEI exist to raise the alarm about the dangers of bureaucracy; in congressional testimony last year, a CEI fellow told lawmakers that despite its best efforts, “unchecked regulation” is still “impeding economic efficiency and undermining progress.” The Trump-Musk administration wasted little time delivering relief on this front: In an executive order last week, the White House announced plans to facilitate the “deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state.” The order instructs agency heads, “in coordination with” DOGE, to identify regulations to put on the chopping block, including those that “significantly and unjustifiably imped[e] technological innovation” or “impose undue burdens on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship.” Suddenly, people who have spent decades framing regulations as an existential threat to their beloved free market have a White House willing to listen and eager to act. Regulation has traditionally lagged behind the pace of the tech industry in particular, which is part of the reason Big Tech has remained so profitable despite doing all kinds of harm that rarely results in meaningful consequences. Maintaining this status quo is worth billions to the leaders of these companies, especially as they search out new sectors of the economy to upend in move-fast-break-things fashion. By gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Musk has deftly greased the skids for X Money, a peer-to-peer payments service that Musk plans to roll out on his social media platform this year. As DOGE fires hundreds of employees at the Federal Aviation Administration, SpaceX engineers are quietly taking their places, and Musk is pushing for the agency to cancel a multibillion-dollar contract with Verizon and award it to his company instead. As sales stagnate, Tesla has taken to hyping its long-awaited driverless taxi business as the future of the company, a bet that becomes a little less risky with every regulatory hurdle that Musk manages to knock over between now and launch. By enlisting Musk to go full Founder Mode on a dated federal bureaucracy, DOGE was pitched as the means of fulfilling every politicians favorite promise: to run government more like a business. “Were going to get the government off your back and out of your pocketbook,” Musk told rallygoers in October to rapturous applause. But there is nothing new about the DOGE playbook, other than the involvement of a celebrity tech executive who is amused by memecoin backronyms. It is a decades-long ideological project to empower people like Musk to make themselves even wealthier at the expense of everyone else.
Category:
E-Commerce
Throughout February, a measles outbreak has been growing in West Texas. The potentially deadly disease, once eliminated from the United States in terms of its continuous transmission, has been making a comeback in recent years as vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccine movements rise. Unfortunately, this outbreak has now had deadly consequences. Earlier this week, it was reported that one unvaccinated Texas child has died as a result of the outbreak. The unfortunate event, along with the continued spread of the disease, has left many asking whether they need a measles vaccine booster shot. Heres what you need to know. About the measles vaccine The good news is that there is an effective vaccine against measles, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That vaccine is generally packaged with vaccines for other diseases, giving you protection from a variety of illnesses. A measles vaccine is part of an MMR shot, which stands for measles, mumps, and rubella. The measles vaccine is also part of the MMRV shot, which stands for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox). The vaccines help protect against all three or four diseases, respectively. To receive maximum protection from measles, youll need two doses of either the MMR shot or the MMRV shot. The dosing schedule depends on the age of the person. In children, the CDC says the recommended schedule for the MMR vaccine is to have the first dose between 1215 months of age and the second dose between 46 years of age. If children are getting the MMRV shot instead, the CDC says the first dose should also be given between 1215 months of age and the second dose between 46 years of age. However, the agency notes that the second dose of MMRV can also be given 3 months after 1st dose. As for older children, adolescents, and adults, the CDC says those who do not have evidence of immunity need 1 or 2 doses of MMR vaccine. Should I get a measles booster shot if Ive already been fully vaccinated? Its important to note that before making any medical decisions, you should always check with a doctor who is familiar with your unique medical history. As noted by CBS, most people who have had two doses of the recommended vaccine will be protected as much as possible throughout their lives. However, one group of people would likely benefit from another course of the vaccine. This group includes those who were first vaccinated against measles before 1968 and do not know which vaccine they received. As the CDC explains, this is because, before 1968, some people received measles vaccines that contained an inactive (killed) strain of the virus, which was ineffective. Modern measles vaccines use a live strain of the virus to produce maximum protection in the body. People who were vaccinated prior to 1968 with either inactivated (killed) measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type should be revaccinated with at least one dose of live attenuated measles vaccine, the CDC states. This recommendation is intended to protect those who may have received killed measles vaccine, which was available in 19631967 and was not effective Is the measles vaccine safe and effective? Health authorities including the CDC say the measles vaccine is both safe and effective. When it comes to the efficacy rate of the MMR vaccine, the numbers are very good. The CDC says one dose of the MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles. The efficacy increases to 97% after the second shot. Furthermore, the health authorities say the MMR vaccine is safe for those who are breastfeeding and that there is no connection between autism and the vaccine. There is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the CDC notes. Scientists in the United States and other countries have carefully studied the MMR vaccine. None has found a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.” While getting the vaccine does not fully protect you from measles, vaccinated individuals who do contract the disease generally experience milder symptoms and are also less likely to spread measles to others, according to the agency. In a February 27 memo addressing the Texas outbreak that has killed one so far, the CDC says, Vaccination remains the best defense against measles infection.”
Category:
E-Commerce
Even as paid family leave has stalled at the federal level, a growing number of states have taken up the issue in recent years. Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., have now passed legislation that makes paid leave mandatory, while a handful of other states have also introduced voluntary systems that leave it to private insurance companies and employers to opt into the benefit. Despite those legislative wins, however, a new report by the nonprofit Moms First and McKinsey indicates that many eligible workers in states with mandatory paid leave are not taking advantage of their access to the benefit. The analysis focused on the paid-leave programs in New York, New Jersey, and Californiawhich were among the first states to offer the benefitand also surveyed over 2,000 parents in those states. Who is eligible for paid leave The vast majority of working parents were eligible for paid leave, in spite of the variation in state-specific requirements for wages or time worked. But the report found that only 40% of eligible parents actually used their paid-leave benefits in 2022, which were worth an estimated $6,000 to $10,000 per person. The families that did take advantage of those policies reported being nearly twice as satisfied with paid leave than they were with other state benefits; at the same time, parents were less likely to take paid leave when compared to similar government offerings like unemployment benefits. Even as more states have adopted laws mandating paid leave, most workers across the country still lack access to it: As of 2024, only 31% of full-time employees in the U.S. had paid leave. There are a number of reasons why utilization of paid leave may be lower than expected, given how critical the benefit can be for families. First is a lack of awareness, which might explain why parents are more likely to use unemployment benefits; of the respondents who did not use paid leave, 60% said they did not know it was available. Why workers don’t take paid leave Other parents were aware of the benefit but didn’t feel comfortable using it, either due to concerns over job security or career progression. “I would have taken [paid family leave] if I could afford it and wouldnt lose my job,” one New York-based mother told Moms First. Low-wage workers were especially likely to worry about whether they could afford to take leaveeven in New York, where the paid leave law explicitly promises job protection. In some cases, there were concerns over wage replacement, since paid leave laws typically only cover part of an employee’s salary (anywhere from 60% to 90%, depending on how much they earn). But the report also indicates that the very disparities that make paid leave so important play a role in why many parents are not fully utilizing the benefit. Since women are more likely to shoulder a greater share of childcare responsibilities, there are fewer women who are eligible for paid leave. In some cases, they may not meet the wage or time worked criteria mandated by state law. (Overall labor participation is also higher for men than it is for women.) In many cases, the cost of childcare can lead one parent to drop out of the workforce and stay home with their childrena burden that disproportionately falls on women. On the other hand, while more men are eligible for paid leave benefits, they are less inclined to use themhalf as likely, in fact. (The unused parental leave captured by the report came to a total of six million weeks, with men accounting for four million.) A number of male respondents actually noted that they didnt think it was necessary to take leave if their partner was already doing so. Race, too, seems to play a role in how widely paid leave is utilized: On the whole, Latino and Black parents are less likely to be eligible for the benefit than white and Asian parents. When they do have access to it, however, Black parents are the most likely to use paid leave. Administrative challenges Another significant hurdle is the administrative burden of applying for paid leave. While many parents who used paid leave expressed satisfaction with the benefit after the fact, almost 60% who opted out said they were frustrated by the application process. Even when paid leave is provided by the state, the vast majority of parents relied on their employer to help guide them through a complicated process, which is likely easier to navigate at large companies that are better positioned to assist their workers. In the absence of a federal lawwhich lost traction after the pandemicadvocates for paid leave have pushed for legislation at the state level, leading many progressive states to adopt mandatory policies over the past decade. But the Moms First report makes clear that without increasing utilization of paid leave, countless parents are not reaping the benefits, from offsetting the steep cost of childcare to improving health outcomes for mothers and children.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||