Archive for the ‘General’ Category
SAFRA-ficed?
Here’s a quick, preliminary reaction to the higher-education portion of the mammoth health-care reconciliation bill. I could find I’m wrong about some stuff as I delve more deeply into the bill’s language, but it appears that much of the out-of-control spending that would have occurred under the odious Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act has been axed under reconciliation. SAFRA, it appears, has been sacrificed, though to bring to life an even more destructive demon.
Unfortunately, some of SAFRA survived. While a great deal of the spending has been stripped out, reconciliation would still tighten the federal government’s already iron grip on college financing. It would also plow billions more into Pell grants despite decades of evidnece that schools just eat such increases by raising prices. And don’t be fooled by the deceptive accounting in which administrative costs for guaranteed lending are counted as mandatory, but for direct lending as discretionary. When one fully accounts for the costs of going to all direct lending the estimated savings drop from $19.4 billion to $14.4 billion between 2010 and 2019, a sizable chunk of change for a nation so in debt it needs to save every penny it can.
Filed under: Education and Child Policy; General; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Lawrence Lessig’s Constitutional Amendment
Lawrence Lessig has proposed a constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. It reads:
“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power to limit, though not to ban, campaign expenditures of non-citizens of the United States during the last 60 days before an election.”
In Citizens United, the Court said that the First Amendment concerns speech rather than speakers. Congress has no power to discriminate against speakers; hence, a source of speech – people organized as a corporation – could not be prohibited from speaking (or funding speech).
Professor Lessig hopes to introduce a discrimination among speakers into the First Amendment. His proposed discrimination will not lose a popularity contest. He wishes to allow Congress to control the speech of non-citizens. He follows two lines of argument in support of his amendment, one less rational than the other.
The less rational line of appeal to the reader is both implicit and predictable. The Chinese are invoked along with the Chamber of Commerce. A denial of xenophobic intent follows immediately, and “We the People” appear near the end. Carl Schmitt would recognize the rhetorical construction of “friend and enemy.” Rather cleverly, Lessig manages to equate the foreign devils with the internal demons of the liberal mind. Corporations (including the Sierra Club?) and the Chinese (or other foreigner) are on one side of political struggles while “We the People” are on the other.
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Government and Politics; Law and Civil Liberties; Political Philosophy
Who I’m Not Voting For
It’s that time of year again, when friends start telling me about this or that candidate I should support because he or she is a dedicated defender of liberty and limited government. I’m a political junkie, so I love getting these recommendations. But I don’t end up supporting or contributing to many candidates. In my view, it’s not enough for a candidate to say that he’s ”committed to slashing wasteful spending, providing tax relief, and eliminating red tape.” What’s your actual tax plan? What spending do you propose to cut or eliminate? Not many of them offer clear answers to that.
And liberty involves more than just economics. Often I’m told, “Congressman X is a libertarian.” I always check, and then I say, “He voted for the war, the Patriot Act, and the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sounds like a conservative.” Now a conservative who opposed President George W. Bush’s trillion-dollar spending increase, his Medicare expansion, and his stepped-up federal involvement in education is a lot better than your average member of Congress. But those votes do not a libertarian make.
This year I’m looking for candidates who stand for freedom across the board, who want government constrained by the Constitution, who believe in the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.
And that means I don’t want to back candidates who support
- the war in Iraq
- the war in Afghanistan
- war with Iran
- the war on drugs
- the constitutional amendment to override state marriage laws and make gay people second-class citizens
- the president’s power to snatch American citizens off the street and hold them without access to a lawyer or a judge
- new restrictions on immigration
So don’t everybody write at once. But I’ll be looking out for political candidates who support liberty and limited government across a wide range of issues.
Filed under: General; Government and Politics; Political Philosophy
Run Away from ‘Common’ Education Standards
A couple of days ago, Fordham Institute president Chester Finn declared on NRO that conservatives should embrace new, national education standards from the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Today I respond to him on The Corner, and let’s just say it’s clear that neither conservatives, nor anybody else, should embrace national standards.
Oh, one more thing: I shouldn’t have to keep saying this to savvy Washington insiders like the folks at Fordham, but when the federal government bribes states with their own citizens’ tax money to do something, doing that thing is hardly voluntary, at least in any reasonable sense.
For more wise thoughts on the national standards issue, check out this interview with Jay Greene, and this Sacramento Bee piece by Ben Boychuk. Oh, and this interview with yours truly.
An Important Defense of Citizens United
M. Todd Henderson of the University of Chicago Law School has a brief but important essay making the case for Citizens United. As they say, read the whole thing.
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Government and Politics; Law and Civil Liberties; Political Philosophy
“Deem and Pass” and TARP
The leaders of the House of Representatives plan to address health care through a “deem and pass” strategy. Professor Michael McConnell believes this strategy violates the Constitution. But put that aside for now. Ms. Pelosi has chosen “deem and pass” because, as she said, “people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” The “people” in question are House Democrats whose votes are essential to passing the bill. These members fear voters would penalize them for voting for the Senate bill. As the Washington Post put it, “deem and pass” would “enable House Democrats not to be on record directly as supporting the Senate measure.” A House Democrat running in a tough election will be able to deny voting for the Senate bill if it passes into law. We would then have an odd situation in which a bill became law even though only a minority of House members are willing to take responsibility for having supported it. It would be, as it were, a mystery how the bill became law.
This all reminds me of the TARP legislation. In my recent policy analysis of how Congress performed badly in the TARP case, I found that members of both of chambers were concerned mostly with avoiding responsibility for voting for the bailouts. In the tough cases, and probably many others, Congress does what it can to avoid being held accountable.
Many people inside DC will look at “deem and pass” through the lens of political hardball. If Pelosi can pull it off, she will be praised as tough and shrewd, a risk taker who gets her way by any means necessary.
But there is a larger problem here. The willingness and capacity of Congress to shirk responsibility for its acts suggests deep institutional decline and corruption. That decline implicates more than Congress itself. How can representative democracy work if voters cannot hold their representatives accountable?
Yet. Another. Fraudulent. Cost Estimate.
House Democrats claim that a not-yet-released Congressional Budget Office report puts the cost of their revised health care overhaul at $940 billion over the next 10 years.
Though I have yet to see the CBO score, I’ll bet anyone a fancy lunch that it does not claim the legislation would cost the federal government just $940 billion from 2010 through 2019.
As former Congressional Budget Office director Donald Marron has explained over and over, the figure that Democrats consistently cite for the cost of their bills is only the CBO’s estimate of the cost of federal spending related to the expansion of health insurance coverage. It is not the full cost to the federal government, because each bill also spends taxpayer dollars on other items.
Marron examined the CBO’s March 11 score of the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, and found an additional $96 billion of spending over 10 years. If the most recent iteration of ObamaCare is similar, then new federal spending in that bill would be approximately $1.036 trillion — pushing the total over the president’s spending target.
Anyone care to take me up on that fancy-lunch wager?
Moreover, the on-budget costs of the legislation probably account for only 40 percent of the total costs. The other 60 percent come from the private-sector mandates. But Democrats have systematically suppressed any estimates of those hidden taxes, probably because such an estimate would reveal the full cost of the legislation to be closer to $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
It has been 272 days since Democrats introduced the first complete version of the president’s health plan. We still haven’t seen an honest cost estimate.
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Would ObamaCare Improve Public Health? Probably Not.
George Avery is an assistant professor of public health at Purdue University. In today’s Daily Caller, Avery rebuts claims that the Obama health plan would improve public health:
The idea that health care contributes significantly to population health is both intuitively appealing and untrue….
In fact, federal “reform” often hurts the public health system. Both public health and health care experts have criticized Medicare and Medicaid, enacted by Congress in 1965, for changing the focus of health care practitioners from prevention to treatment….
Requiring all Americans purchase health insurance, which the current bills hope to do, would not address the underlying socio-economic issues at the root of most public health problems….
Indeed, access to health care can help individual patients, but can also aggravate some public health problems…. High rates of surgical intervention increase the risk and spread of drug resistant infections like MRSA.
Avery is the author of the Cato Institute briefing paper, “Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy.”
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Wednesday Links
- Busy with an ambitious domestic agenda, the Obama administration has put trade issues on the back burner. Let’s hope it stays that way.
- A little lesson on how government works. (As opposed to how it’s supposed to work.)
- There has been talk that House Democrats are planning to “deem” the health care bill into law without calling for a vote. If you’re not sure how that process works, read this.
- Contrary to a growing belief in Washington, revaluing China’s currency will not cure the trade deficit.
- Podcast: “ObamaCare Threatens Innovation” featuring Michael F. Cannon.
David Goldhill: “A Democrat’s Case For ‘No’”
David Goldhill has done it again.
You may recall his article, “How American Health Care Killed My Father,” from the September 2009 issue of The Atlantic.
Now, at HuffingtonPost, he comments on the health care legislation that may soon face a final vote (of some sort) in the House:
[C]ontinuing our Party’s almost unquestioned conflation of health insurance with health care, the central feature of the proposed “reform” is further extension of our flawed insurance-based system…[D]espite the Administration’s recent heated rhetoric, most of the entrenched health industry interests are quietly or openly in favor of this bill. Should the bill become law, I suspect we will look back at it as an industry bailout…
How…can Democrats in the depths of a recession support a massive tax increase on middle-class job creation…? How…could we justify diverting even more of middle class income to support our broken system of care, further starving families of funds for all their other needs? Most uninsured Americans lack insurance only temporarily; how many of them would trade lesser lifetime job prospects and lower disposable income for the short-term retention of health insurance?…
If the legislation had any real prospect of controlling health care spending, would the pharmaceutical industry be funding the “yes” campaign?
As a former Democrat who hung door knockers for Michael Dukakis in 1988, I know the heavy heart with which he writes. Read the whole thing.
Watch the video to hear Goldhill’s story:
A Confession from the CBO Director
The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the so-called stimulus generated jobs and growth. I addressed some of the profound shortcomings in CBO’s Keynesian model in a previous post, pointing out that the model is structured to produce certain results regardless of what happens in the real world.
Interestingly, the Director of the CBO, Doug Elmendorf, basically agrees with me. In a recent speech, recorded by C-SPAN, he was asked during the question-and-answer session whether the model simply spits out pre-determined numbers. After some hemming and hawing and a follow-up question, he confessed “that’s right” when asked if the model would be unable to detect whether the stimulus failed. The relevant exchange begins around the he 39-minute mark of this recording, and Elmendorf’s confession takes place shortly after the 40-minute mark (I selflessly watched the entire thing so you wouldn’t have to suffer waiting for the key moment).
I’m not sure whether this admission is good news or bad news. It is a sign of progress, I suppose, that CBO’s Director is now on the record acknowledging that the model is useless (at least for purposes of measuring the effectiveness of more government spending). But it is perhaps an even more troubling indication of what’s wrong in Washington that nobody is concluding that the time has come to junk Keynesian analysis. This is either an updated version of The Emperor’s New Clothes or a perverse form of the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight because there’s light, even though he lost them someplace else.
Filed under: General; Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy
Obama’s Populism a Hoax: ObamaCare Is a Sop to Big PhRMA
From the invaluable Tim Carney:
The Obama team regularly dismisses opponents as industry lackeys. The Democratic National Committee blasted out e-mails this week warning that “for every member of Congress, there are eight anti-reform lobbyists swarming Capitol Hill” and “Congress is under attack from insurance lobbyists.”
But drug industry lobbyists, according to Politico, spent the weekend “huddled with Democratic staffers” who needed the drug lobby to “sign off” on proposals before moving ahead. Meanwhile, we learn that the drug lobby is buying millions of dollars of ads in 43 districts where a Democratic candidate stands to suffer for supporting the bill. The doctors’ lobby and the hospitals’ lobby are also on board with the Senate bill.
So the battle at this point is not reformers versus industry, as Obama would have you believe. Rather, it is a battle between most of the health care industry and the insurance companies.
(And the insurers are not opposed to the whole package. On the bill’s central planks — limits on price discrimination, outlawing exclusions for pre-existing conditions, a mandate that employers insure their workers and a mandate that everyone hold insurance — insurers are on board. They object mostly that the penalty is too small for violating the individual mandate.)
Filed under: General; Government and Politics; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Conservatives and Afghanistan
Tomorrow, the Cato Institute will be holding a half-day conference titled, “Escalate or Withdraw? Conservatives and the War in Afghanistan.”
One of the many speakers at tomorrow’s conference will be Rep. John Duncan (R-TN). On the House floor this week, he explained why “there is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan.”
Watch:
In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a conservative, and neither are many of my Cato colleagues. This event is intended to highlight that leaving Afghanistan is far beyond Left vs. Right, and that anti-war sentiment is not “owned by peaceniks and pacifists.”
You can come to the event, or watch it live online.
Filed under: Foreign Policy and National Security; General
Will Kucinich’s Vote Help ObamaCare?
Whether Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s (D-OH) “aye” vote will help pass ObamaCare depends on whether he asked for something in return.
Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake reports, “Kucinich told Obama that he wants a full ERISA waver [sic] and a public option in exchange for his vote.” If he gets either of those things in the reconciliation “fixer” bill, then that will trigger a backlash. His “support” could undermine the whole process.
It really depends on what kind of a negotiator Kucinich is. If he’s a good negotiator, it hurts ObamaCare. If he’s a lousy negotiator, it helps.
AP: Obama Misleads Voters about ObamaCare’s Effects on Premiums
Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print…
The [Congressional Budget Office] concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they’d reach without the legislation…
“People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now,” said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. “If they did buy the same value plans … the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure.”
Nichols’ comments are also misleading — which makes the president’s statement not just misleading but untrue.
Under ObamaCare, people would not have the option to buy the same low-cost plans they do today. That’s the whole problem: under an individual mandate, everybody must purchase the minimum level of coverage specified by the government. That minimum benefits package would be more expensive than the coverage chosen by most people in the individual market. Their premiums would rise because ObamaCare would take away their right to choose a more economical policy.
Note also that the CBO predicts premiums would rise by an average of 10-13 percent in the individual market. Consumers who currently purchase the most economic policies would see larger premium increases.
Finally, the Obama plan would also force millions of uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance at premiums higher than current-law premium levels, which they have already rejected as being too high. Their premium expenditures would rise from $0 to thousands of dollars. Yet the CBO counts that implicit tax as reducing average premiums, because those consumers are generally healthier-than-average. Only in Washington is a tax counted as a savings.
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Questions for Thoughtful ObamaCare Supporters, Part III
I’ve already posted two series of such queries. But every day brings new questions to mind. So here are a few more:
- What does it say that pharmaceutical-industry lobbyists are meeting with House Democrats to write this legislation behind closed doors? Or that the pharmaceutical industry is preparing to spend millions of dollars on advertisements in support of the legislation?
- Does it trouble you that a former federal judge writes, “Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another“?
- Does it trouble you that Speaker Pelosi says of the proposed “deeming” strategy, “I like it because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill“? (Emphasis added.)
- What does it say that left-of-center The Washington Post editorializes that the Democrats’ endgame seems “dodgy” and “threatens to turn into something unseemly and, more important, contrary to Democrats’ promises of transparency and time for deliberation”?
- What does it say about the feasibility of the Obama health plan that Speaker Pelosi is drawn to the “deeming” strategy, which she once opposed in a court of law?
Tuesday Links
- Gene Healy on the “Al-Qaeda Seven”: Republicans who assail President Obama for his allegedly “soft-on-terror policies” are running a campaign that is based on phony charges, and is a dangerous distraction from the fight for limited government.
- Doug Bandow on the costs of war.
- This week, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) discussed imposing massive new regulations on the financial sector. Mark Calabria explains the potential impact.
- If the House enacts the Senate health care bill without voting on it, are we under obligation to obey it? The answer may be no.
- Podcast: “Reagan and the Tyranny of the Status Quo” featuring John Samples, author of the forthcoming book, The Struggle to Limit Government.
If the House Enacts the Senate Health Care Bill without Voting on It…
…are we under any obligation to obey it? The answer may be no.
Democrats are considering a scheme that would “deem” the Senate health care bill to have passed the House if a separate event occurs (specifically: House passage of a budget reconciliation bill). That strategy has been named after its contriver, House Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says of this scheme: “I like it because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill” (emphasis added).
Not so fast, says former federal circuit court judge Michael McConnell in The Wall Street Journal:
Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.
The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”
Democrats have already hidden 60 percent of the cost of the Senate bill, effected an obscenely partisan change in Massachusetts law to keep the bill moving, pledged more than a billion taxpayer dollars to buy votes for the bill, and packed the bill with an unconstitutional individual mandate and provisions that violate the First Amendment. It’s almost as if, to paraphrase comedian Lewis Black, Democrats spent a whole year, umm, desecrating the Constitution and at the last minute went, “Oh! Missed a spot!”
And these people want us to put our trust in government.
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Government and Politics; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Obama’s Education Proposal Still a Bottomless Bag
This morning the Obama Administration officially released its proposal for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka, No Child Left Behind). The proposal is a mixed bag, and still one with a gaping hole in the bottom.
Among some generally positive things, the proposal would eliminate NCLB’s ridiculous annual-yearly-progress and “proficiency” requirements, which have driven states to constantly change standards and tests to avoid having to help students achieve real proficiency. It would also end many of the myriad, wasteful categorical programs that infest the ESEA, though it’s a pipedream to think members of Congress will actually give up all of their pet, vote-buying programs.
On the negative side of the register, the proposed reauthorization would force all states to either sign onto national mathematics and language-arts standards, or get a state college to certify their standards as “college and career ready.” It would also set a goal of all students being college and career ready by 2020. But setting a single, national standard makes no logical sense because all kids have different needs and abilities; no one curriculum will ever optimally serve but a tiny minority of students.
Also, on the (VERY) negative side of the register, Obama’s budget proposal would increase ESEA spending by $3 billion from last year — for a total of $28.1 billion — to pay for all of the ESEA reauthorization’s promises of incentives and rewards. That’s $3 billion more that the utterly irresponsible spenders in Washington simply do not have, and that would do nothing to improve outcomes.
Even if this proposal were loaded with nothing but smart, tough ideas, it would ultimately fail for the same reason that top-down control of government schools has failed for decades. Teachers, administrators, and education bureaucrats make their livelihoods from public schooling, and hence spend more time and money on education lobbying and politicking than anyone else. That makes them by far the most powerful forces in public schooling, and what they want for themselves is what we’d all want in their place if we could get it: lots of money and no accountability to anyone.
As long as such asymmetrical power distribution is the case — and it’s inherent to “democratic” control of education — no proposal, no matter how initially tough, is likely to make any long-term improvements. As the matrix below lays out, no matter what combination of standards and accountability you have, politics will eventually lead to poor outcomes. It’s a major reason that the history of government schooling is strewn with “get-tough” laws that ultimately spend lots of money but produce no meaningful improvements, and it’s a powerful argument for the feds complying with the Constitution and getting out of education.
When all is said and done, you can throw all the great things you want into the federal education bag, but as long as politicians are making the decisions you’ll always come up empty.
Drug Violence in Mexico
The apparent drug gang killings of U.S. consular employees this weekend in Juarez, Mexico are a bloody reminder that President Obama is getting the United States involved in yet another war it cannot win. Drug gang killings also occurred in Acapulco, with a total of 50 such fatalities nationwide over the weekend.
Unfortunately, Obama has responded to the latest incident by following the same failed strategy as his predecessors when confronted with drug war losses: a stronger fight against drugs.
Though the deaths are the first in which Mexican drug cartels appear to have so brazenly targeted and killed individuals linked to the U.S. government, illicit drug trade violence has killed some 18,000 people in Mexico since President Calderon came to power in December 2006—more than three times the number of American military personnel deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
The carnage only shot up after Calderon declared an all-out war on drug trafficking upon taking office. After more than three years, the policy has failed to reduce drug trafficking or production, but it is weakening the institutions of Mexican democracy and civil society through corruption and bloodshed, which are the predictable products of prohibition.
The 29 people killed in drug-related violence this weekend in a 24 hour period in the state of Guerrero sets a dubious record for a Mexican state. And an increasing number of Mexicans, including former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda, are calling for a thorough rethinking of anti-drug policy in Mexico and the United States that includes legalization. Legalization would significantly reduce drug cartel revenue and put an end to an enormous black market and the social pathologies that it creates.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets