Connect with us

Opinions

Small businesses cheer White House regulatory order

New policy restricting federal regulations welcomed by enterprise

Published

on

The White House, gay news, Washington Blade
The White House

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

President Trump fulfilled a significant campaign pledge on Monday when he signed an executive order referred to as a “one in, two out” policy on new federal regulations.

Requiring “that for every new federal regulation proposed, two must be revoked,” this directive is not as simplistic as summarized. The order targets regulatory costs and not merely the number of individual regulations, and would additionally establish a cost cap on new regulatory mandates. Under the order, any new regulation must be “offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.”

The business community, and smaller enterprise in particular, widely cheered this reform measure and welcomed the priority Trump conveyed to it by acting expeditiously. He had promised only to do so within the first 100 days of his administration.

D.C. was represented at the White House ceremony by Casey Patten of Taylor Gourmet, co-founder of the popular local hoagie eatery with multiple locations open in, or planned for, D.C.’s most prominent and newly developing areas. Patten also attended a meeting with Trump and his executive staff detailing the presidential directive prior to its signing.

The Obama administration was notorious for promulgating a bevy of extensive new rulemaking, including a big batch while headed out the door, which businesses decried as costly burdens hindering growth and employment. Trump, however, was quick to point out, “This is a knock on many presidents preceding me. It got particularly bad in the last eight years, but … it’s a knock on many.”

The president’s initiative mirrors regulatory restrictions in both the U.K. and Canada. Canada’s “One-for-One Rule” applies to the direct costs of the administrative burden for businesses, while the U.K.’s “One-in, Three-Out” requirement assesses all new net regulatory cost implications. Australia has also instituted similar cost-weighing accountability.

Implementation will prove complex and complicated. Imposing a required assessment balancing business costs, however, will inject much-needed discipline in government rulemaking. Forcing an evaluation among bureaucrats followed by public analysis of the financial impact of new rules and administrative requirements will lead to more cost-effective policies.

A “pay as you go” philosophy and commonsense attitude factoring for economic effects of the constant churn of red tape will demand guidelines for creating regulatory balance. Benefit-versus-cost review standards and creating specific regulatory reduction targets – across multiple agencies – will be imperative.

An applicability threshold determination, such as any regulation with an economic impact of $100 million or more, is essential. Capturing an overly broad range of regulations could overwhelm any evaluation system, but tackling too small a range of regulations could produce insufficient business burden reduction.

Any offset requirement will itself tend to curtail the current gusher of new regulations to a reasonable and responsible level. To get there, a conscientious true-cost assessment will be required – inevitably prompting reluctance and resistance by anti-enterprise extremists.

Big government types, of course, will conjure up images of planes falling from the sky and gangrenous slabs of meat littering grocery shelves. What they intentionally overlook, and likely don’t understand, is that most government marketplace interventions have little to do with actual public health and safety, and appropriate limited exceptions in those areas are easily accommodated.

The no-regulation-is-ever-too-onerous adherents possess little ability or, worse, willingness to assess the negative business operating implications and deleterious economic effects of over-regulation. Ensuring accurate and independent assessment of regulatory costs, perhaps by non-governmental sources, may become requisite.

As one Washington small business owner operating several long-popular and highly successful neighborhood restaurants recently proffered in retort to a D.C. Council member pushing for more local business restrictions and legislative rules at a community meeting, “the only new job I’ve been able to create is for an office administrator to cope with the mounting pile of reporting requirements for all the new regulations you keep sending our way.”

It’s a lot to hope, but D.C. should likewise adopt this new sensible national standard.

Mark Lee is a long-time entrepreneur and community business advocate. Follow on Twitter: @MarkLeeDC. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Opinions

Casa Ruby’s services must survive

But the organization’s name doesn’t matter

Published

on

A group of asylum seekers gather at Casa Ruby on March 5, 2019. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A judge approved putting Casa Ruby into the hands of a receiver and approved the D.C. Attorney General’s recommendation of the Wanda Alston Foundation, of which June Crenshaw is the executive director. She is an amazing person. Founded in 2008, according to its website “the Wanda Alston Foundation provides housing and support services for D.C. homeless and at-risk LGBTQ youth ages 18 to 24 and advocates for expanded city services for LGBTQ youth.” 

Contrary to what Ruby Corado said at the hearing she apparently Zoomed into from El Salvador, it is only important to have someone who knows the work of Casa Ruby and if it is someone who worked for a successful organization in the area all the more reason for them to be named. 

It’s not important that the name Casa Ruby survives. What is important is the services it once provided to the transgender community survive, and even expand. That can be done under any name. 

Taking over as receiver will not be an easy task. Crenshaw will have to unravel the mess that is there now. The receiver will have to face the fact money may have been stolen and deal with employees who weren’t paid. They will have to deal with the fact, which now seems clear, that Casa Ruby was out of compliance with the District Non-Profit Corporations Act. 

D.C. was an amazing place for me to come out and I did so after moving here in 1978.  As a political person I got involved with what was then the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, which had just played a major role in electing Marion Barry as mayor. Over the years I got more and more involved in the LGBTQ community. I, along with Rick Rosendall, founded and incorporated the Foundation for all DC Families, the organization we set up to fight for marriage equality in D.C. We worked hard, raised funds and had Celinda Lake do the first major poll on the issue in D.C. We found the white community in D.C. was heavily in favor of marriage equality and the Black community was partially supportive based on age and religion. We recognized many of us who began the organization had white privilege, which made life easier for us. We never earned that privilege it was something society just awarded us. We worked hard to recruit a diverse board for the organization and involved the faith community in the fight as well. Then along with Sheila Alexander-Reid and Cornelius Baker we incorporated the Campaign for All DC Families as the 501(c)(4) to do the political work to secure marriage equality. We continued to raise some money for the organization and worked with HRC, which lent us staff and meeting space. We recruited new people. We won the fight working with Council member David Catania and the rest of the Council. Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the D.C. marriage equality bill and I still have one of the pens presented to me at the signing. 

White privilege made it easier for me to be out. Because of this over the years I supported groups like the Wanda Alston Foundation, and Casa Ruby, because there are so many members of the LGBTQ community who still struggle in the District, no matter how LGBTQ-friendly our laws are. We must all work to ensure no one falls behind due to homophobia, transphobia, racism, or sexism. Again, I will continue to support the services for the transgender community, which Casa Ruby provided, but don’t care what the organization providing them is called. 

The problem I have with Ruby Corado was compounded when I read in the Blade what she said at the virtual hearing disputing “the allegations, saying among other things, that claims that she was not in communication with the Casa Ruby board was a misconception.”

If Corado cares about the people Casa Ruby served, why is she in El Salvador? Who has she been in touch with — which board members, and will they confirm this? If she cared about the organization and people it served, and has done nothing wrong, why is she not here in the District fighting for the employees, calling a board meeting (if there is a board)? Non-profit boards hire executive directors and oversee their work. I don’t think Casa Ruby ever had a real ‘working’ board overseeing Corado’s work. We need to question and get affidavits from former ‘board’ members as to what they did and what they know about what Corado did.

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Supporting LGBTQ rights is good for business and the right thing to do

Equity and inclusion must be a corporate imperative

Published

on

Brad Baumoel is the Global Head of LGBT+ Affairs at JPMorgan Chase.

In communities across the United States, LGBTQ+ people and their families are facing a growing number of significant barriers to equal rights and protections. In 2022 alone, at least 30 states have introduced anti-LGBTQ+ bills, with a majority targeting transgender and non-binary youth, on top of continued anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and bias in various states across the country. Despite progress toward equity and inclusion, the LGBTQ+ community is increasingly struggling for equality and basic human rights.

I’m truly concerned for members of my community, given the impact these actions are having on our mental health and wellbeing. Several of my LGBTQ+ colleagues and colleagues with LGBTQ+ family members have expressed fear for themselves and their children. Some are scared their transgender child will be taken from them and placed in foster care. Others feel they might be personally prosecuted for seeking gender affirming care for their child. Many are worried they’ll need to move to a different state just so they can continue accessing essential forms of health care.

I feel lucky to work for a company that opposes discriminatory actions that could harm our employees, customers, and the communities where we do business, and has equally advanced policies, practices, and benefits to support our LGBTQ+ workforce. It comforts me to know my employer supports a society that serves all Americans, including the LGBTQ+ community. But not everyone has the same assurance when they go to work.  

Now more than ever, LGBTQ+ equity and inclusion must be a business imperative. Business leaders must use their voice to condemn the hate, bias, transphobia and homophobia that sadly exist in our communities. We also need businesses to take meaningful and measurable action in promoting and advancing inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community year-round, not just during Pride month. While it starts with inclusive benefits, policies and networks of support, this commitment requires businesses to lead with the values of acceptance and belonging in every decision they make. It’s only then that your LGBTQ+ employees, customers and communities will truly feel included and equal. 

Since the first LGBTQ+ Business Resource Group at JPMorgan Chase was created in the 1990s, many, like me, have worked hard to make our company a place where LGBTQ+ employees feel they can be their authentic selves when they come to work. Last year, we strengthened this commitment by creating the Office of LGBT+ Affairs, a full-time, dedicated team focused on advancing equity and inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees, customers, clients, and communities. It’s my sincere hope that we don’t see our efforts slowed down by attempts to threaten the rights of people for who they are, whom they love or how they identify.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Queer kids are not brainwashed

Trans children are real transgender people, not trend chasers

Published

on

In some conversations with progressive friends, my peers, despite their proclaimed liberal attitudes, voice concern over the fact that children can experiment with gender and sexuality. They say things like “kids are too young to question their gender…that seems dangerous” or “a lot of children are just following gender trends and are not actually trans.” Other friends state that they don’t believe that transgender children should have access to hormone blockers. 

All of these statements are bogus and harmful. Many people who question gender fluidity in children don’t realize that they themselves have been brainwashed into thinking, from a young age, that being cisgender and straight is the norm. It should not be the norm. In fact, queerness is ever more common now among Gen Z’ers, and this is because the youth of today are feeling more and more comfortable opening up about their different sexuality and gender from an early age. 

Being able to safely come out as trans or gay in high school is an extremely healthy process and greatly improves the mental health of kids who would otherwise struggle. In red states, and conservative high school districts, this kind of coming out is still difficult, and might even be banned in the future, if Republicans continue with their cruel agenda. But there is hope in progressive cities like Portland and New York, where students feel free to question cishet and straight standards. 

Much research points to the fact that trans children are who they say they are: real transgender people, and not trend chasers. Kristina Olson, a psychologist at the University of Washington, started running a long-term study on trans youth in 2013. Olson eventually amassed a group of more than 85 trans kids. Olson kept in touch with both the children and their parents over the years. Her team ultimately found that an overwhelming, vast majority of the children stayed consistent with the gender nonconforming identity they chose in childhood. In other words, these trans children were correct about their gender identity from a young age. The notion that children pick up trans identities as a “fad,” or are wrong about them, is outdated. 

We already know that Republicans are dangerous to trans children, and have already prevented them from receiving health care or playing sports in many red states. But what we need to stop is dialogue from progressive voices that discourages gender fluidity in youth. These statements from otherwise liberal leaning people are contradictory to the very values that Democrats stand for. 

Isaac Amend (he/him/his) is a trans man and young professional in the D.C. area. He was featured on National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ in 2017 as a student at Yale University. Amend is also on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. Find him on Instagram @isaacamend.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Popular