CPAC Panel on the Constitutionality of Obamacare Has No Lawyers
Some libertarians boycott CPAC because it’s “too conservative,” others embrace it to try to steer the conservative movement in a more liberty-minded direction (on which, see Reason.tv’s excellent interview of Sen. Jim DeMint). I have no principled feelings on the subject. I’ve never attended – wasn’t really on my radar in college, couldn’t make it to DC during grad/law school, then was too busy lawyering, and now it would feel odd just to hang out rather than be part of the program — but I know lots of folks who enjoy it.
One thing I noticed about this year’s program — other than that my colleague Neal McCluskey is on an education policy panel at 10:30am on Friday — is that there’s a panel on the constitutionality of Obamacare (1:25 on Friday). Curiously, there aren’t any lawyers on this panel. C’mon, CPAC, I know this isn’t a Federalist Society convention, but it would seem useful to have people actually grappling with the legal issues educating your attendees about it. Not all of us have problems communicating with non-JDs; do I have to issue another Obamacare debate challenge?
Occupy Afghanistan
In an essay for Armed Forces Journal, Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis writes that after traveling across Afghanistan and speaking with more than 250 soldiers in the field, “What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.” Further down he continues, “I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.”
It’s hard to disagree.
Davis’s essay comes weeks after the top-secret 2011 National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan finds that security gains in the Afghan war are unsustainable, and that pervasive corruption, government incompetence, and militant safe havens in Pakistan have undercut progress.
I’m reminded of a comment made recently by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee:
There have been gains in security … but the Taliban is still a force to be reckoned with. They still occupy considerable land in the country.
“Occupy” is the operative word in that sentence. That gains in Afghanistan are “fragile and reversible” is the oft-repeated mantra of defiant optimists who invoke our inability to achieve key objectives—improve local governance, eradicate corruption, convince Pakistan to shut down safe havens, etc.—as reason to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely. Mind you, the opposite is also true: if such objectives are somehow reached, then we can never leave, since leaving would risk jeopardizing the gains we’ve won.
The intractable cross-border insurgency, of course, will outlive the presence of international troops. After all, a local district mullah who moonlights as a Taliban operative has nowhere else to go. Indeed, as the last 10 years have shown, insurgents can outlast coalition troops by merely re-emerging after we’ve left—that’s an endurable occupation.
In separate dissents appended to the report mentioned above—a report that reaches similar conclusions about the war made in the 2010 N.I.E.—the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. John Allen, and the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, agreed in the judgment that the Taliban have shown no readiness to abandon their political goals. And, according to Col. Brian Mennes, who commands 3,300 troopers of the 4th Brigade: “The Taliban are going to have a role in post-war Afghanistan…They are Afghans. They are there—it’s just physics!’”
Coalition night raids and drones strikes have managed to eliminate the Taliban’s numerous shadow governors, mid-level commanders, and weapons facilitators; however, as the 2011 N.I.E. was quoted as saying, the Taliban’s “strength, motivation, funding and tactical proficiency remains intact.” And, “Many Afghans are already bracing themselves for an eventual return of the Taliban.”
From war fighters and trigger pullers to desk-bound spooks and armchair analysts, the conclusion reached is that after a decade of war we still haven’t won. The reason? All politics is local.
Remember that a key component of the Obama administration’s strategy for Afghanistan was winning over local people and luring them away from the Taliban. But the always perceptive Captain Cat, who has worked on Afghan peace building, offers insight into what went wrong:
As we talk and sip tea, the younger man’s brother arrives, wrapped in a patu. He keeps his hair long, jihadi style, and it pokes out of his pakool. He was a more senior commander than his younger brother, and only reconciled a few months ago.
I ask the commander what he does with his days. “The government doesn’t trust anyone who is reconciled, so no one will hire us. My other brother does small jobs, he owns a cart in town and he sometimes does delivery work. He gets calls from Miram Shah from the Taliban and they tell him “look at your life now, pushing carts. What kind of a man are you?”
“I really regret reintegrating with the government, I wish I hadn’t – but if I go back now, the Taliban will kill me”.
We shake hands and I leave them. Miserable, bored and ashamed, they will while away their days wondering how to feed their families, when the Taliban will come for them and why they put their trust in the government. It’s hard not to wonder the same thing.
Tragically, the vast majority of Afghans were initially happy with the foreign troop presence. They took a “wait-and-see” approach. But that spirit has largely deteriorated. Conversely, the Taliban are reviled but the general view among many Afghans toward the movement is either ambivalence or that the Afghan government is worse. Perhaps more importantly, as the Afghan government’s head of Rural Rehabilitation and Development insisted to me at his office in Kabul awhile back: “Taliban is part of our culture.”
The coalition’s deus ex machina is reconciliation with the Taliban. While such an outcome to the war is hardly a victory worth celebrating, it’s difficult to imagine a lasting solution that does not involve the war’s other occupying force, the Taliban.
But, But…Price Controls Poll Well!
Politico‘s Jason Millman writes:
How much does Rick Santorum hate President Barack Obama’s health care law? So much that he even opposes the parts a lot of Republicans like.
The Republican presidential candidate, talking health care across the street from Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic Monday morning, blasted parts of the Affordable Care Act that poll well even among Republican voters — like guaranteeing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and making health insurers cover preventive care.
Santorum, who has touted free market health principles like health savings accounts as an alternative to the Affordable Care Act, defended insurance industry practices the law eliminates, like setting premiums based on people’s health status.
Sigh. I refer my right honorable friend to the smack-down I gave such silliness some time ago:
Asking people whether they support the law’s pre-existing conditions provisions is like asking whether they want sick people to pay less for medical care. Of course they will say yes. If anything, it’s amazing that as many as 36 percent of the public are so economically literate as to know that these government price controls will actually harm people with pre-existing conditions. Also amazing is that among people with pre-existing conditions, equal numbers believe these provisions will be useless or harmful as think they will help.
But as the collapse of the CLASS Act and private markets for child-only health insurance have shown, and as the Obama administration has argued in federal court, the pre-existing conditions provisions cannot exist without the wildly unpopular individual mandate because on their own, the pre-existing conditions provisions would cause the entire health insurance market to implode.
If the pre-existing conditions provisions are a (supposed) benefit of the law, then the individual mandate is the cost of those provisions. If voters don’t like the individual mandate–if they aren’t willing to pay the cost of the law’s purported benefits–then the “popular” provisions aren’t popular, either.
Or, as Firedoglake’s Jon Walker puts it, ObamaCare is about as popular as pepperoni and broken glass pizza.
Even among Republican voters? Good grief.
Which Way Is Inflation Headed?
First let me admit I do not have a crystal ball, nor does anyone I know, so given the limitations of economic forecasting, one can only attempt educated guesses as to the direction of any economic variable. That said, I found the chart below, taken from the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index release, to be interesting in terms of the clear trend.
The lower line is core CPI, the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation, the upper line is the full CPI, which includes food and energy prices. The good news is that while still higher than I’d prefer, food and energy prices started to moderate in the fall of 2011. That moderation in food/energy prices, however, did not translate into a lower core CPI. In fact the core CPI continued its fairly steady increase. Since September 2011, core CPI has been, on an annualized basis, above the Fed’s target of 2 percent (let’s set aside, for the moment, whether this is the right target or if it is even measured appropriately). Remembering that monetary policy works with “long and variable lags” the time to worry about inflation is before it hits, not after. Given the clear upward trend in the government’s own charts, I’d say we are already past the point where we should start worrying.
No Budget in 1,000 Days? No Budget Ever!
Around the time of President Obama’s State of the Union speech two weeks ago, Republicans and their allies came out arguing that the Democratic Senate hadn’t produced a budget in 1,000 days. Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) disputes the charge.
Is it true? The new budget season started Monday, so it’s a great time to examine that question.
Budget season really did start Monday. The Congressional Budget Act has a timetable in it (at section 300) that says the president submits his budget on or before the first Monday in February. We’re underway!
But I hope you weren’t holding your breath waiting to get a glimpse of the president’s budget. The White House has kicked back its release by a week—an unfortunate symbol of how both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue flout budget processes in ways large and small.
Now to the question: When was the last Senate budget?
Let’s start with a preliminary question: What is a “budget”?
The Irony of the President’s STEM Initiatives
The media tide of the past two days has carried in a great flood of stories on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education. ABC, NBC, AP, Reuters, the Christian Science Monitor, Politico, the Detroit News, and others joined in. This torrent of attention is due to a White House science fair at which the president announced several initiatives to boost student achievement in those fields. Details are scant, but based on the administration’s press release it seems that $100 million or so would go to encourage particular kinds of teacher’s college programs. Various extracurricular STEM programs funded by non-profit foundations were also touted in the release.
The obvious irony in the president’s plan to tweak teachers’ college programs is that those programs are themselves a key part of the problem. The nation’s state school monopolies typically require most or all of their teachers to either have a degree from a government-approved college of education or to be pursuing such a degree during evenings and weekends. Few of those studying or working in STEM fields are willing to sit through a teachers’ college program—with good reason. Not only are these programs often pointless according to their own graduates, they are not associated with improved student performance. They are a requirement without a function–at least without a function that benefits students. The one thing they do accomplish is to erect a barrier to entry that protects incumbent teachers from competition, allows the specter of “teacher shortages” to be floated at regular intervals, and thus to justify above market wages [state school teachers receive compensation that is roughly $17,000 per year higher than their private sector counterparts].
As a result, many of the most promising teaching candidates in these fields are weeded out from the start. President Obama’s plans to “improve” this barrier to entry into the profession amounts to reupholstering the deck chairs on the sunken Titanic.
But how to ensure that only effective teachers lead the nation’s classrooms given that the government certification process is not just useless but counterproductive? Here, again, there is irony. Somehow, in the thousands of different fields in which scientists and engineers work every day, the competent are distinguished from the incompetent. And somehow, those who underperform are either helped to improve or cut loose to seek work in a field (or with an employer) to which their talents are better suited. It is ludicrous to suggest that managers can effectively evaluate the work of the scientists and engineers they employ in every field _except_ education.
The media would do us all a favor if they would look past the Obama administration’s marshmallow launcher for a moment and contemplate the effect that our massive barrier to entry into the teaching profession has on recruiting scientists and engineers.
The World Bank Backs African Trade Liberalization
The World Bank has come out with a wonderful short video explaining the benefits of trade liberalization among African countries:
Cato has addressed that topic in a 2005 paper:
[Accordingly,] in 1997 SSA countries levied an average applied tariff of 34 percent on agricultural exports from other SSA countries. Industrial countries, by contrast, imposed an average applied tariff of 24 percent on SSA agricultural exports. Similarly, SSA countries maintained an average applied tariff of 21 percent on nonagricultural exports from other SSA countries. Industrial countries imposed an average applied tariff of 4 percent on SSA non-agricultural exports.
According to the WTO, only 10 percent of African (including sub-Saharan African) exports were intraregional (i.e.: traded to other African countries). In contrast, 68 percent of exports from countries in Western Europe were exported to other Western European countries. Similarly, 40 percent of North American exports were to other countries in North America.
Barack Obama, Leninist?
In his much-discussed New Yorker article on the strategy memos that have shaped the Obama administration, Ryan Lizza writes:
Most of Obama’s conservative dinner companions from his evening at George Will’s home now describe him and his Administration in the most caricatured terms. Will declared Obama a “floundering naïf” and someone advancing “Lenin-Socialism.”
Really? Mild-mannered George Will compared President Obama to Lenin? That set off my skepticism meter. So I summoned the vast fact-checking resources of the Cato Institute and Googled the phrase. Which quickly turned up this video:
And as you can clearly hear at 1:30, Will isn’t saying “Lenin socialism.” He’s making the much milder and entirely valid charge of “lemon socialism,” which he described as “transferring wealth from the successful to the unsuccessful.” That’s an old term for the government takeover or bailout of failing firms. On the left it’s often described in terms such as “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor” or “privatizing profits and socializing losses.” People on the right deplore the practice of bailing out unsuccessful firms with taxpayers’ dollars.
That’s a point that Will also made in his column, first when the Bush administration started bailing out failing banks and auto companies. And it’s also been made by Charles Krauthammer on the auto bailout and again on the Solyndra deal. And by Cato adjunct scholar Lawrence H. White. And by lots of Cato-at-Liberty bloggers. Even Paul Krugman and Robert Reich.
Where was the skepticism of a New Yorker reporter when he thought he’d found the prudent, mild-mannered George Will comparing the president to Lenin? Where were the famous New Yorker fact-checkers? Some things, I guess, are just too good to check. So to answer the question in the title, Is Barack Obama a Leninist? No, just a lemonist.
This Month’s Cato Unbound: What Is Due Process?
What is due process?
Virtually everyone would agree that “due process” refers to a set of judicial procedures that create at least a strong tendency toward fair results.
But why do we have these procedures and not some others? Why do we have trial by jury, and not trial by fire? Why not just flip a coin? In this month’s Cato Unbound, our lead essayist, Timothy Sandefur, says that we have the procedures we do for one very simple reason: We recognize them as fair.
In other words, “due process” ultimately points back at a larger — and much thornier — legal and philosophical issue, that of fair treatment itself. If it didn’t, “due process” would just guarantee some empty (or possibly harmful) rituals.
So far, so good. Sandefur doesn’t stop there, however. He adds that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantees of due process mean “not only that government must take certain procedural steps (hearings, trials, and so forth) when it imposes a deprivation, but also that some acts are off limits for government, “regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.”
In other words, due process is a check both on the procedure of the judiciary and on the substance of legislation. Some kinds of laws, Sandefur argues, cannot be implemented by any fair process — there’s no good reason for them, and there’s no lipstick enough for pigs like these. In such cases, the guarantee of due process is either a mockery of itself — or it’s enough to strike down the law. Sandefur picks the latter.
Is he right? Professor Lawrence Rosenthal of Chapman University disagrees, writing:
Deciding whether a law is supported by “good reason” is the essence of policymaking. Our Constitution guarantees a republican form of government, and in a republic, policy is made by those who are politically accountable for their decisions. Sandefur’s conception of due process of law, however, creates a judicial platonic guardianship that must approve every policy decision.
One side risks judicial overreach. The other side risks the tyranny of the majority. Which one is right? Stay tuned for the rest of this month’s Cato Unbound, which will also feature commentary by legal scholars Ryan Williams of the University of Pennsylvania and Gary Lawson of Boston University. Legal scholars will also want to review Sandefur’s paper in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (pdf), which develops the argument in fuller detail.
Three Blind Senators Defend ObamaCare
The Wall Street Journal often publishes op-eds from “the other side,” perhaps out of a sense of fairness, perhaps to show how bad the other side’s reasoning sometimes is – “Don’t take our word for it; see for yourself.” That rationale must have been at play in the decision to publish in this morning’s edition a truly remarkable piece from the pens of three Senate women, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Barbara Boxer of California, and Patty Murray of Washington.
In “Why the Birth-Control Mandate Makes Sense,” such sense as emerges from the senators’ effort to defend the Obama administration’s decision to force religious institutions to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives, and abortifacients comes from a simple claim, repeated in several variations: doing so would be good – for women, for children, for families, for businesses and consumers. Indeed, “our nation will be better for it.”
Say no more! Who could be against it? We don’t have to look far for the answer:
Sadly, there is an aggressive and misleading campaign to deny this benefit to women. It is being waged in the name of religious liberty. But the real forces behind it are the same ones that sought to shut down the federal government last year over funding for women’s health care. They are the same forces that just tried to pressure the Susan G. Komen Foundation into cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood for breast-cancer screenings. Once again, they are trying to force their politics on women’s personal health-care decisions.
There we have it: it’s women and the rest of us, up against these sinister “real forces,” hiding behind religious liberty. In sketching this little morality play, it seems not to have occurred to the good senators that there might be people of good will on the other side. That blind spot emerges nicely in a single paragraph:
Those now attacking the new health-coverage requirement claim it is an assault on religious liberty, but the opposite is true. Religious freedom means that Catholic women who want to follow their church’s doctrine can do so, avoiding the use of contraception in any form.
At this point in the argument, if the policy is not an assault on religious liberty, one would expect the senators to show how it protects the religious rights of those Catholic (and other) institutional administrators who are forced to take actions their religious doctrines prohibit. But the rights of those people don’t even arise in the senators’ argument – as if they didn’t even exist. Instead, the focus continues to be exclusively on women, for in the very next sentence they say: “But the millions of American women who choose to use contraception should not be forced to follow religious doctrine, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.”
Who is “forcing” such women “to follow religious doctrine”? They’re perfectly free to use contraceptives, to seek abortions, and to do whatever else their beliefs permit. They just can’t expect others who object to such practices to pay for them. Nor do religious charitable organizations that receive public funds lose their rights either, not if the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions still has weight.
And so we come to the heart of the matter. ObamaCare is just the latest example of the perils of collectivization. When we’re forced to be “all in this together,” we’re forced to fight for every “carve-out” of liberty. Those progressive Catholics who supported ObamaCare should have thought of that before they worked to throw us all in the common pot. This incident is simply an early example of the many battles to come if ObamaCare survives the litigation and the elections ahead.
Unemployment Insurance Fraud: Chile Has Solution
Like other government hand-out programs, the unemployment insurance system suffers from a substantial fraud problem. The Washington Post reports that 90 D.C. city employees and 40 former employees are being investigated for grabbing UI benefits to which they were not entitled. The cost of this fraud has been about $800,000 since 2009.
It’s not hard to rip-off federal subsidy programs, and UI is no exception. The Post reports that “the alleged fraud is not complicated, nor is it uncommon in unemployment insurance programs: Workers apply for checks and receive them legitimately for a time but fail to inform authorities when they go back to work.”
Other sources of UI fraud include the misreporting of earnings, the provision of false ID to gain benefits, and falsifying reasons for employment termination. Nationwide, the Department of Labor estimates that the improper payment rate for UI is about 11 percent, which amounted to $17 billion of wasted taxpayer money in 2010.
What’s the solution? The nation of Chile appears to have found it. In 2002 it created a system of UI personal savings accounts to replace the traditional government hand-out system. The new system built on the success of Chile’s Social Security personal account system. UI personal accounts help solve the fraud problem because workers would only be stealing from their own accounts if they took unjustified benefits.
There are other benefits to the Chilean system. A detailed study in 2010 found that the nation’s savings-based UI system helped improve work incentives and reduced unemployment. Such accounts can also add to the long-term retirement savings of workers.
For a full analysis of the failures of our UI system and possible reforms, see my co-authored essay on DG here.
Another Log for the Government Spending Multiplier Fire
At the center of the debate over efforts by policymakers to “stimulate” the economy with government spending is the issue of fiscal multipliers. Some economists argue that government spending can be a free lunch: an additional dollar of government spending increases GDP by more than one dollar. Other economists say that government spending is not so free: an additional dollar of government spending increases GDP by less than one dollar or even reduces it.
My non-empirically based view is that the mainstream media tends to treat the free lunch position as gospel. Why that appears to be the case I’ll leave to others to speculate, but it is decidedly irritating. Back in 2010, my colleague Alan Reynolds noted that a survey conducted by an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco counted several studies that concluded that the multiplier effect of government spending is less than one.
We can now add to the list another study that found a multiplier of less than one.
From a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by economist Valerie Ramey:
For the most part, it appears that a rise in government spending does not stimulate private spending; most estimates suggest that it significantly lowers private spending. These results imply that the government spending multiplier is below unity. Adjusting the implied multiplier for increases in tax rates has only a small effect. The results imply a multiplier on total GDP of around 0.5.
Note: For readers who are interested in real world examples of how government spending hinders economic growth, check out DownsizingGovernment.org.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
