A fairly reliable rule of thumb in Washington is that bills and regulations rarely live up to their marketing. The Biden administration’s recent regulations promulgated in the name of “consumer protection” prove this perfectly.
Perhaps most striking is the Biden administration’s opposition to mergers and acquisitions. This antitrust approach, spearheaded by regulators at both the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, has all but abandoned the consumer welfare standard that has traditionally governed antitrust policy. While administration regulators claim they are going after big business, consumers often pay the price.
For example, the Biden administration has taken heavy-handed action in some very consumer-heavy industries, such as supermarkets and airlines. Recently, the FTC announced its intention to pursue challenges to the recently-announced Kroger-Albertsons merger. These two traditional supermarket chains are responding to up-and-coming dynamic competitors in the grocery market. They want to increase their combined resources to give consumers another versatile and efficient option. While the FTC sees itself attacking two large companies, what they are really doing is denying consumers options at the grocery store.
Similarly, the Biden administration’s decision to block the JetBlue-Spirit merger earlier this year will leave consumers worse off. Competitors sought to combine the vast resources of JetBlue with Spirit’s ability to deliver affordable flights. This could have created a rush to lower prices and improve service. But once again, the Biden administration put the interests of consumers behind their desire to notch a hollow win against the free market.
Sadly, this does not yet plumb the limits of the Biden administration’s woeful ignorance of consumer welfare. Even the deceptively named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a perpetrator of this phenomenon. Earlier this year, they pursued regulation to increase their ability to regulate peer-to-peer payment applications, such as Venmo or Cash App. These apps are a response to market forces, making it easier for people to spend and transfer their money as they see fit. Instead of applauding this development, the CFPB wants to regulate them as stringently as traditional banks. It is, again, a failed response to an invented harm.
The Biden administration’s regulations sadly make their way right inside people’s homes. One of the Biden administration’s first acts was to reverse the Trump administration’s rulemaking allowing dishwashers and shower heads to be more efficient. The Biden administration’s logic was that this new class of appliances would waste water and, thus, harm the environment. This, of course, ignored the fact that lower water pressure means people take longer showers and use more water anyway. Similarly, low-power dishwashers will often get run for longer or more frequently to achieve similar results. Instead of allowing consumers the choice, the administration chose to stick people with subpar appliances.
The Biden administration attempted an even more aggressive overreach by trial-ballooning a ban on gas stoves. Despite the fact that gas stoves are almost invariably more practical and affordable, the administration subjugated consumers to partisan agenda points. They even tried to trot out a misleading study that falsely claimed gas stoves contributed to childhood autism. Once more, every consideration is top of mind except that which is best for consumers.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
The administration has also been oddly fixated on electric vehicles. In March, the administration implemented tailpipe emission regulations that would make it very difficult for automakers to sell anything but EVs. EVs are far more expensive than their gas-powered alternatives. They also don’t perform well in cold weather for the many people living in snow-prone states. However, the Biden administration wants to ensure the majority of new vehicles sold by 2032 are electric. Consumers will quite literally pay the price.
Biden’s bureaucrats have routinely disregarded consumer welfare while simultaneously claiming these rules will provide a wealth of benefits. While the administration may claim these rules will help people, a cursory look at the implications of its proposals shows this is not the case.
Dan Savickas is director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.