Claims And Issues

NO COSTS, NO EVIDENCE, NO REASONS.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2019 IS THE LAST DAY TO LEAVE COMMENTS!  IT'S EASY TO DO.

On the Federal Regulations portal, https://www.regulations.gov, I left the following Comments on the changes effectively gutting the State Heating and Cooling Standard Utility Allowances (HCSUAs) authorized by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.  The changes were proposed by the current Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) which does very little to protect food and advance nutrition, and its parent, the current Department of Agriculture.

It should escape no-one's notice that the State Heating and Cooling Standard Utility Allowance changes would take effect in the Winter.  Want may be most keenly felt then, to paraphrase Dickens, but cold is certainly most keenly felt in Winter in many sections of the United States that did not vote for the current regime or its proposed changes.  Perhaps that is a reason that these proposed revisions are scheduled to take effect in Winter.

NO COSTS, NO EVIDENCE, NO REASONS: COMMENTS TO PROPOSED SNAP RULE HCSUA REVISIONS. 12.01.19.
by
Dennis J. Wall
Sunday, December 1, 2019.
Re: FNS-2019-009.
RIN: 0584-AE69.

To the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and Department of Agriculture (USDA):

You published your latest Proposed SNAP rule revisions along with your commentary in the Federal Register, 84 F.R. 52809 - 52815. That is where you published your proposed revisions to pre-existing State Heating and Cooling Standard Utility Allowances (HCSUAs). You wrote that you propose to redefine HCSUAs.

1.  You did not estimate or evaluate the costs of your proposed change to beneficiaries of the pre-existing HCSUA rule. In order for you to make such changes, you are first required by law to estimate such costs. For this reason alone, your proposed HCSUA revisions are contrary to law and so invalid.

You are given authority to propose and revise rules and regulations by Congress. Your authority does not extend to refusing to obey the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The Administrative Procedure Act requires that you estimate and evaluate the costs of your proposals. This includes your proposed change to the HCSUAs. You have not reported any costs to the current beneficiaries of your proposed changes. It appears that you have not estimated any costs of your proposed revision to the people who benefit from the current rule governing HCSUAs.

    For this reason alone, your proposed HCSUA revision is contrary to law and so invalid.

2. Your proposed changes to the pre-existing HCSUA rule are unsupported by evidence. Your authority to make or change rules and regulations is limited to rules and revisions supported by evidence. For these reasons alone, your proposed HCSUA revisions are contrary to law and so invalid.

You did not support your proposed changes to the pre-existing HCSUA rule with evidence. Your authority to make rules and change regulations is limited by the law with which Congress conferred authority upon you to do so. It is limited in pertinent part by your compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The APA requires that you support all your proposals with evidence. You have not provided evidence at all for the changes you propose to the current HCSUA rule. For these reasons alone, your proposed changes are contrary to law and are invalid.

3. Your proposed changes to the pre-existing HCSUA rule are unreasonable and irrational. For this reason alone, your proposed HCSUA revisions are contrary to law and so invalid.

Your proposed changes to the pre-existing HCSUA rule are irrational. You report only that your proposed changes will benefit some States, and not others.

    You do not provide any reasons for changing the pre-existing HCSUA rule.

    For all these reasons, your proposed rule changes are unreasonable and invalid.

4. Conclusion.

For all these reasons, whether taken separately or together, your proposed rule is unreasonable under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State Hearing and Cooling Standard Utility Allowances statutes and under the Administrative Procedure Act enacted by Congress, and rules previously issued by your agency. Your proposed rule should be withdrawn and rewritten before it is implemented, if ever. If it is implemented it should be struck down.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Dennis Wall

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Download NO COSTS NO EVIDENCE NO REASONS. COMMENTS TO PROPOSED SNAP RULE HCSUA REVISIONS. 12.01.19.

COMMENTS ON OVERDRAFT RULE ARE DUE BY JULY 1.

I left the following Comments on the overdraft rule earlier today.  Comments are due by July 1.  The overdraft rule is being examined by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because the CFPB is required to review the rule by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  Reviews and revisions of rules by the CFPB since 2017 have not been favorable to consumer financial protection.  If you want to leave Comments on the overdraft rule that advance consumer financial protection, your time grows short.  Go to www.regulations.gov, input “overdraft rule,” and click on “Comment Now!”  Comments do not have to be as long or as complicated as books or articles.  They can be short and to the point, which if I had it to do over again, I would make my own Comments even shorter and even more to the point.

Here are the Comments I left on the overdraft rule earlier today:

I would like to leave these comments on improving and strengthening the overdraft rule.

First, as I understand the present situation, banks may charge fees without getting a customer's prior approval whenever the customer overspends her or his account by using a paper check.  As it is currently written, the overdraft rule applies to most electronic transactions.  Paper checks may not be as prevalent as they once were, but prevalence of electronic transactions is no excuse for this inequity.  (This would be true in any case, but today it is especially true because electronic transactions are required by the very banks who benefit from the rule's failure to regulate transactions involving paper checks.)  This is unfair and unequal.  The overdraft rule should now be updated and strengthened by extending its application to the customer's use of a paper check.

Further, I understand that some banks still reorder debit transactions so that one tiny shortage in the customer's account becomes an automatic trigger of overdrafts and fees charged by the banks.  The banks that indulge themselves in this practice and that continue to inflict it upon their customers apparently rely on disclosure to their customers of what they do, usually in small inconspicuous type in a disclosure document.  Disclosure is no excuse for predatory practices.  Customers often have little or no choice of banking options in their communities.  This practice of reordering debit transactions, usually by processing them from the highest amount to the lowest amount, must be barred completely.  The overdraft rule should be updated and strengthened accordingly, with a complete prohibition on any practice of reordering debit transactions that has the result of charging the customer with overdraft and any other associated charges.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dennis Wall

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Download CI and IBF 06.27.19.