The three-week battle over ObamaCare’s contraceptive-abortifacient ruling isn’t letting up. Catholics for Choice has a full-page ad in this morning’s Washington Post, urging the president to stay firm. And it’s the lead story today on NPR’s Morning Edition, which in printed form devotes fully 2 of 16 paragraphs—the last 2—to the other side (not bad for NPR). The gist of the piece is, what’s the big deal? “The only truly novel part of the plan is the ‘no cost’ bit,” says NPR’s Julie Rovner.

“Now millions more women and families are going to have access to essential health care coverage at a cost that they can afford,” says Sarah Lipton-Lubet, policy counsel with the ACLU. “But as a legal matter, a constitutional matter, it’s completely unremarkable.”

Unfortunately, they’re right: our modern anti-discrimination law has been so extended that today it undermines religious liberty on many fronts. Two terms ago, for example, a bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled that the Christian Legal Society, a student group at the Hastings Law School, had to admit “all comers,” not only as members but as officers. (See Cato’s amicus brief defending the group’s right to discriminate in the name of religious liberty and freedom of association.)

Here, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in 2000 that failure to provide contraceptive coverage violates the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an amendment to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlaws, among other things, discrimination based on gender. And 26 states today have similar “contraceptive equity” laws on the books, Rovner reports, which state courts have upheld in suits brought by Catholic Charities and others. She quotes from the 2006 decision of New York State’s top court:

When a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees’ legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit.

Right there, of course, is the problem. As I wrote over the past two days, no one on the other side is asking employees to do anything contrary to their religious beliefs—or not do “what their own beliefs permit.” Employers are not “imposing their religious beliefs” on their employees, as some have argued. Those employees are still perfectly free to use contraceptives and abortifacients. They just shouldn’t expect their employers, through the group health insurance plans the employers offer, to provide and pay for such measures if doing so violates their religious beliefs. But that would be to discriminate against women, the courts have held, since only women get pregnant. Thus does our antidiscrimination law, as found in statutes, trump religious liberty, as once protected by the Constitution. “To each his own” falls by the wayside when “we’re all in this together,” as ObamaCare requires us to be.

Under ObamaCare, Anti-Discrimination Law Trumps Religious Liberty is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

My Cato colleague John Cochrane – who is way smarter than I am — has a generally excellent op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on ObamaCare’s contraception mandate:

Salting mandated health insurance with birth control is exactly the same as a tax—on employers, on Catholics, on gay men and women, on couples trying to have children and on the elderly—to subsidize one form of birth control…

The tax rate and spending debates that occupy the media are a small part of the effective taxes and spending that the government achieves by these regulatory mandates…

The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don’t have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society…

Sure, churches should be exempt. We should all be exempt.

My only quibble is with his claim, “Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses.”

That’s generally true. But medicine is an area where, potentially at least, small up-front expenditures (e.g., on hypertension control) could prevent large losses down the road. So it may be economically efficient for health plans to cover some small, regular, and predictable expenses. Both the carrier and the consumer would benefit. In fact, that would be the market’s way of telling otherwise uninformed consumers, “Hey! Controlling your hypertension is a really good for you!” And really, if someone is so risk-averse that they want health insurance with first-dollar coverage of everything – and they’re willing to pay the outrageous premiums that would accompany such coverage — why should we take issue with that?

ObamaCare’s contraceptive-coverage mandate demonstrates that government does  a horrible job of picking only those types of “preventive” services for which first-dollar coverage will leave consumers better off. But I also think advocates of free-market health care generally need to let go of the idea that health insurance exists only for catastrophic expenses.

Cochrane on ObamaCare’s Contraceptive-Coverage Mandate is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

When Ronald Reagan said that big government undermined the economy, some people dismissed his comments because of his philosophical belief in liberty.

And when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same reaction.

This is why it’s important that a growing number of establishment outfits are slowly but surely coming around to the same point of view.

• The European Central Bank published a study showing “…a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth.”
• A study by two Harvard economists found that “large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions.”
• The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted in recent research that welfare programs are economically destructive because they lure people into dependency because “net disposable income would increase despite putting in fewer hours.”
• A study from the International Monetary Fund concluded that “Cuts to pension and health entitlements had the most beneficial effect on economic growth.”

This is remarkable. It’s beginning to look like the entire world has figured out that there’s an inverse relationship between big government and economic performance.

That’s an exaggeration, of course. There are still holdouts pushing for more statism in Pyongyang, Paris, Havana, and parts of Washington, DC.

But maybe they’ll be convinced by new research from the World Bank, which just produced a major report on the outlook for Europe. In chapter 7, the authors explain some of the ways that big government can undermine prosperity.

There are good reasons to suspect that big government is bad for growth. Taxation is perhaps the most obvious (Bergh and Henrekson 2010). Governments have to tax the private sector in order to spend, but taxes distort the allocation of resources in the economy. Producers and consumers change their behavior to reduce their tax payments. Hence certain activities that would have taken place without taxes, do not. Workers may work fewer hours, moderate their career plans, or show less interest in acquiring new skills. Enterprises may scale down production, reduce investments, or turn down opportunities to innovate. …Over time, big governments can also create sclerotic bureaucracies that crowd out private sector employment and lead to a dependency on public transfers and public wages. The larger the group of people reliant on public wages or benefits, the stronger the political demand for public programs and the higher the excess burden of taxes. Slowing the economy, such a trend could increase the share of the population relying on government transfers, leading to a vicious cycle (Alesina and Wacziarg 1998). Large public administrations can also give rise to organized interest groups keener on exploiting their powers for their own benefit rather than facilitating a prosperous private sector (Olson 1982).

In other words, government spending undermines growth, and the damage is magnified by a poorly designed tax policies.

The authors then put forth a theoretical hypothesis.

…economic models argue that the excess burden of tax increases disproportionately with the tax rate—in fact, roughly proportional to its tax rate squared (Auerbach 1985). Likewise, the scope for self-interested bureaucracies becomes larger as the government channels more resources. At the same time, the core functions of government, such as enforcing property rights, rule of law and economic openness, can be accomplished by small governments. All this suggests that as government gets bigger, it becomes more likely that the negative impact of government might dominate its positive impact. Ultimately, this issue has to be settled empirically. So what do the data say?

These are important insights, showing that class-warfare tax increases are especially destructive and that government spending undermines growth unless the public sector is limited to core functions.

Then the authors report their results.

Figure 7.9 groups annual observations in four categories according to the share of government spending in GDP during that year. Both samples show a negative relationship between government size and growth, though the reduction in growth as government becomes bigger is far more pronounced in Europe, particularly when government size exceeds 40 percent of GDP. …we provide new econometric evidence on the impact of government size on growth using a panel of advanced and emerging economies since 1995. As estimates can be biased due to problems of omitted variables, endogeneity, or measurement errors, it is necessary to rely on a broad range of estimators. …They suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in initial government spending as a share of GDP in Europe is associated with a reduction in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.6–0.9 percentage points a year (table A7.2). The estimates are roughly in line with those from panel regressions on advanced economies in the EU15 and OECD countries for periods from 1960 or 1970 to 1995 or 2005 (Bergh and Henrekson 2010 and 2011).

These results aren’t good news for Europe, but they also are a warning sign for the United States. The burden of government spending has jumped by about 8-percentage points of GDP since Bill Clinton left office, so this could be the explanation for why growth in America is so sluggish.

Last but not least, they report that social welfare spending does the most damage.

Governments are big in Europe mainly due to high social transfers, and big governments are a drag on growth. The question is whether this is because of high social transfers? The answer seems to be that it is. The regression results for Europe, using the same approach as outlined earlier, show a consistently negative effect of social transfers on growth, even though the coefficients vary in size and significance (table A7.4). The result is confirmed through BACE regressions. High social transfers might well be the negative link from government size to growth in Europe.

The last point in this passage needs to be emphasized. It is redistribution spending that does the greatest damage. In other words, it’s almost as if Obama (and his counterparts in places such as France and Greece) are trying to do the greatest possible damage to the economy.

In reality, of course, these politicians are simply trying to buy votes. But they need to understand that this shallow behavior imposes very high costs in terms of foregone growth.

To elaborate, this video discusses the Rahn Curve, which augments the data in the World Bank study.

As I argue in the video, even though most of the research shows that economic growth is maximized when government spending is about 20 percent of GDP, I think the real answer is that prosperity is maximized when the public sector consumes less than 10 percent of GDP.

But since government in the United States is now consuming more than 40 percent of GDP (about as much as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector.

Data in New World Bank Report Shows that Large Public Sectors Reduce Economic Growth is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

One of the issues discussed in my new essay on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the lobbying by groups of American Indians seeking official tribal status. The BIA has the power to confer tribal status, and it does so in a non-transparent manner. With official status comes tribal access to a wide range of federal subsidy programs plus the ability to earn monopoly profits with a casino. The gaining of official status for tribes was one of Jack Abramoff’s specialty services.

The most recent BIA decision to confer tribal status is a classic case. The 221-member Tejon tribe in California received a thumbs up from the BIA in January 2012. The group’s reservation and its tribal status had been dissolved decades ago, but it hired some powerful Washington lobbyists to work their magic. An article in the Bakersfield Californian notes, “In their quest to gain recognition, the Tejons had the help of an unnamed ‘financial backer’ who had paid $300,000-plus to the tribe’s attorneys.” This financial backer was “banking on a casino.”

A Mountain Enterprise story says that once the Tejon tribe’s status was official, “speculation began almost immediately about the tribe’s plans to affiliate with Tejon Ranch Corporation and Las Vegas investors to establish a casino facility.” Famous D.C. lobby shop Patton Boggs earned $120,000 in fees on the deal.

For the Tejons, the lobbyists produced results. There are hundreds of Indian groups who have petitioned the BIA for tribal status, and the BIA only confers status to a few tribes a year. Yet somehow the Tejons managed to jump to the front of the queue. This list (and this one) appear to show that the tribe ranked low on the recognition waiting list at #230 (but I admit I’m not an expert on how the system works).

The tribes who hire lobbyists don’t always win. Here’s a story about the 450-member Muwekma Ohlone of California:

Financed by their own casino sugar daddy, Florida real estate tycoon Alan Ginsburg and his associates, as well as with proceeds from the tribe’s own archaeological consulting firm, the otherwise humble Muwekma have spent millions of dollars on the effort. Much of that money has gone toward procuring the aid of a high-powered Washington, D.C., law firm…. [R]ecognition would open the door for the tribe… to place land in federal trust as a ‘reservation’ on which it could open a casino. Indeed, should they attain recognition, the Muwekma almost assuredly will become the envy of non-gaming tribes from outlying regions of the state who’ve tried and thus far not succeeded at ‘reservation shopping’ — that is, attempting to set up casino operations in urban areas far from their aboriginal homeland.

The Muwekma Ohlone tribe lost an important court ruling last year, which has set back their search for official recognition. In this case, the only winners were the lawyers and lobbyists, who apparently pocketed huge fees from the tribe. This data source shows that lawyers and lobbyists gain about $20 million a year in fees on Indian gaming-related issues. Jack Abramoff alone raised $80 million from half a dozen tribal clients in the early 2000s for lobbying on a wide range of tribal issues.

Indian gaming and other complex regulatory schemes usually generate “rent” or monopoly privileges that groups vie for a manner that is unproductive to society as a whole. When the government confers special benefits through regulation, wealth is channeled to lawyers and lobbyists but the overall economy shrinks due to the misallocation of resources.

The best policy for gaming would be to repeal all government restrictions and to treat gaming like any other industry. That would eliminate rents and the related lobbying, and it would create an equal and competitive playing field for Indians and non-Indians alike.

The good thing about Indian gaming is that it has shown that Indians are every bit as entrepreneurial as other Americans. But gaming is not likely to be a stable platform for long-term Indian economic development. That’s because as tribal and nontribal gaming continues to expand, profit levels in tribal gaming are likely to decline.

A more durable strategy for Indian prosperity is to make institutional reforms on reservations to encourage broad-based investment in a range of industries, as discussed here.

Indian Gaming: The Lobbyists Always Win is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Regarding legislation to create an ObamaCare “Exchange” in Virginia, the Richmond Times-Dispatch explains:

Republicans at the General Assembly are falling prey to the fallacy of the false alternative…

[H]ere are the real options facing Virginia: (a) federal bureaucrats determine the form of our exchange, or (b) federal bureaucrats determine the form of our exchange. There is no (c)…

Running a health-insurance exchange would cost a lot of money — money Virginia does not have. Since Washington will dictate how it will be run, Washington should pick up the tab.

RTD: ‘Insurance Exchange: Just Say No’ is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Will the GOP win the birth-control fight?

My response:

The GOP will win the current contraceptive-abortifacient battle going away, because the average American understands the essence of religious freedom: government cannot force people to do things that violate their religious beliefs. The administration may try to frame this as a defense of women’s rights, but that’s pure sophistry. As I wrote yesterday, if the administration’s decision is reversed, women will still be perfectly free to use contraceptives, to seek abortions, and to do whatever else their beliefs permit. They just won’t be able to force others who object to such practices to pay for them.

There’s a bigger issue here, however. This is just the latest example of the perils of ObamaCare. When health care is thus “collectivized,” when we’re “all in this together,” we’re forced to fight for every “carve-out” of liberty. Those progressive Catholics who supported ObamaCare, who are now appalled by this move, 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.

ObamaCare’s Coercive Essence is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

FantasySCOTUS.net, a project of the Constitution-educating Harlan Institute (on whose non-profit board I sit), has been tracking its 12,000+ members’ predictions in the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court.  You can read more in-depth about the current state of the prediction market — with fancy graphs! – but here’s a summary:

• 90.6% predict that the lawsuit can proceed, overcoming the Anti-Injunction Act;
• 51.7% predict that the Court will strike down the individual mandate;
• 73.5% predict that the Court will then sever the mandate from the rest of the legislation (though this response isn’t very meaningful becuase the severability issue, unlike the others, isn’t a binary up-down choice for the justices);
• 77.2% predict that the Court will uphold the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion.

The FantasySCOTUS managers caution that these predictions are still preliminary, particularly because most members don’t offer predictions until after oral arguments.  To learn more about FantasySCOTUS and its crowdsourcing techniques (“wisdom of the crowds”), see this recent article from the Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property.

And if you want to get in on the predicting, you can sign up here.

The Wise Crowds Say Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The Daily Caller reports that Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is planning another effort at Internet regulation—right on the heels of the SOPA/PIPA debacle. The article seems calculated to insinuate that a follow-on to SOPA/PIPA might slip into cybersecurity legislation the Senate plans to take up. Whether that’s in the works or not, I’ll detail here the privacy threats in cybersecurity language being circulated on the Hill.

A Senate draft currently making the rounds is called the “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2012.” It sets up “cybersecurity exchanges” at which government and corporate entities would share threat information and solutions.

Sharing of information does not require federal approval or planning, of course. Information sharing happens all the time according to market processes. But “information sharing” is the solution Congress has seized upon, so federal information sharing programs we will have. Think of all this as a “see something, say something” campaign for corporate computer security people. Or perhaps “e-fusion centers.”

Reading over the draft, I was struck by sweeping language purporting to create “affirmative authority to monitor and defend against cybersecurity threats.” To understand the strangeness of these words, we must start at the beginning:

We live in a free country where all that is not forbidden is allowed. There is no need in such a country for “affirmative” authority to act. So what does this section do as it in purports to permit private and governmental entities to monitor their information systems, operate active defenses, and such? It sweeps aside nearly all other laws controlling them.

“Consistent with the Constitution of the United States and notwithstanding and other provision of law,” it says (emphasis added), entities may act to preserve the security of their systems. This means that the only law controlling their actions would be the Constitution.

It’s nice that the Constitution would apply</sarcasm>, but the obligations in the Privacy Act of 1974 would not. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act would be void. Even the requirements of the E-Government Act of 2002, such as privacy impact assessments, would be swept aside.

The Constitution doesn’t constrain private actors, of course. This language would immunize them from liability under any and all regulation and under state or common law. Private actors would not be subject to suit for breaching contractual promises of confidentiality. They would not be liable for violating the privacy torts. Anything goes so long as one can make a claim to defending “information systems,” a term that refers to anything having to do with computers.

Elsewhere, the bill creates an equally sweeping immunity against law-breaking so long as the law-breaking provides information to a “cybersecurity exchange.” This is a breath-taking exemption from the civil and criminal laws that protect privacy, among other things.

(1) IN GENERAL.—No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any Federal or State court against any non-Federal governmental or private entity, or any officer, employee, or agent of such an entity, and any such action shall be dismissed promptly, for the disclosure of a cybersecurity threat indicator to—
(A) a cybersecurity exchange under subsection (a)(1); or
(B) a private entity under subsection, (b)(1), provided the cybersecurity threat indicator is promptly shared with a cybersecurity exchange.

In addition to this immunity from suit, the bill creates an equally sweeping “good faith” defense:

Where a civil or criminal cause of action is not barred under paragraph (1), a good faith reliance by any person on a legislative authorization, a statutory authorization, or a good faith determination that this Act permitted the conduct complained of, is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this Act or any other law.

Good faith is a question of fact, and a corporate security official could argue successfully that she acted in good faith if a government official told her to turn over private data. This language allows the corporate sector to abandon its responsibility to follow the law in favor of following government edicts. We’ve seen attacks on the rule of law like this before.

A House Homeland Security subcommittee marked up a counterpart to this bill last week. It does not have similar language that I could find.

In 2009, I testified in the House Science Committee on cybersecurity, skeptical of the government’s ability to tackle cybersecurity but cognizant that the government must secure its own systems. “Cybersecurity exchanges” are a blind stab at addressing the many challenges in securing computers, networks, and data, and I think they are unnecessary at best. According to current plans, cybersecurity exchanges come at a devastating cost to our online privacy.

Congress seems poised once again to violate the rule from the SOPA/PIPA disaster: “First, do no harm to the Internet.”

The Senate’s SOPA Counterattack?: Cybersecurity the Undoing of Privacy is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

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?

CPAC Panel on the Constitutionality of Obamacare Has No Lawyers is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

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.

But, But…Price Controls Poll Well! is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

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.

Barack Obama, Leninist? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

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.

Three Blind Senators Defend ObamaCare is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

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.

Unemployment Insurance Fraud: Chile Has Solution is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Today’s victory for equal liberty was narrow, but important nonetheless. 

All that Prop 8 did was to deny gay couples the right to have their relationships labeled “marriage,” without any effect on the rights, privileges, and responsibilities attending that marital designation (which legal incidents California had already granted to gays who entered into civil unions).  As the court noted, there is no purpose in denying the use of the word “marriage” other than “to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

Unfortunately, this technically good result might create perverse incentives for states who wish to give gay people substantive but not symbolic equality: the court did not say whether government can still give limited or no rights to gay unions, as long as it doesn’t give everything except the word “marriage.” 

But that just goes to highlight the messiness inherent in government involvement in a given policy area: were government out of the marriage business altogether, courts wouldn’t have to split hairs and legislatures wouldn’t have to gnash teeth.  

Let people decide for themselves how they want to live and whose recognition they value.  In the meantime, this case may be complete — the already hesitant Supreme Court may refrain from reviewing such a narrow ruling (which the Ninth Circuit could still take up en banc) – but the controversy will not soon end.

Appeals Court Upholds Gay Marriage, Sort Of is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Associated Press photojournalist Noah Berger captured this thousand-word image near the Occupy Oakland demonstrations last month.

(AP Photo/Noah Berger)

Many Cato@Liberty readers will get it immediately. They can stop reading now.

For everyone else, this image perfectly illustrates the ethos of what I call the Church of Universal Coverage.

Like everyone who supports a government guarantee of access to medical care, the genius who left this graffiti on Kaiser Permanente’s offices probably thought he was signaling how important other human beings are to him. He wants them to get health care after all. He was willing to expend resources to transmit that signal: a few dollars for a can of spray paint (assuming he didn’t steal it) plus his time. He probably even felt good about himself afterward.

Unfortunately, the money and time this genius spent vandalizing other people’s property are resources that could have gone toward, say, buying him health insurance. Or providing a flu shot to a senior citizen. This genius has also forced Kaiser Permanente to divert resources away from healing the sick. Kaiser now has to spend money on a pressure washer and whatever else one uses to remove graffiti from those surfaces (e.g., water, labor).

The broader Church of Universal Coverage spends resources campaigning for a government guarantee of access to medical care. Those resources likewise could have been used to purchase medical care for, say, the poor. The Church’s efforts impel opponents of such a guarantee to spend resources fighting it. For the most part, though, they encourage interest groups to expend resources to bend that guarantee toward their own selfish ends. The taxes required to effectuate that (warped) guarantee reduce economic productivity both among those whose taxes enable, and those who receive, the resulting government transfers.

In the end, that very government guarantee ends up leaving people with less purchasing power and undermining the market’s ability to discover cost-saving innovations that bring better health care within the reach of the needy. That’s to say nothing of the rights that the Church of Universal Coverage tramples along the way: yours, mine, Kaiser Permanente’s, the Catholic Church’s…

I see no moral distinction between the Church of Universal Coverage and this genius. Both spend time and money to undermine other people’s rights as well as their own stated goal of “health care for everybody.”

Of course, it is always possible that, as with their foot soldier in Oakland, the Church’s efforts are as much about making a statement and feeling better about themselves as anything else.

The Ethos of Universal Coverage is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The liberty-lovers at New Hampshire’s Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy have produced this video of my appearance before the New Hampshire House of Representatives where I argued against creating health insurance “Exchanges”:

(Notice my rapt audience.)

Should New Hampshire Create a Health Insurance Exchange? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Is it April Fool’s Day? Has somebody in Paris hacked the website at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development? Have we been transported to a parallel dimension where up is down and black is white?

Please forgive all these questions. I’m trying to figure out why any organization—even a leftist bureaucracy such as the OECD—would send out a press release entitled, “Rising tax revenues: a key to economic development in Latin American countries.”

Not even Keynesians, after all, think higher taxes are a recipe for growth.

Ah, never mind. I just remembered that the OECD is a hotbed of statism, so the press release makes perfect sense. After all, the U.S.-taxpayer-funded organization has become infamous for reflexively advocating big government.

• The OECD has an anti-tax competition project designed to prop up Europe’s bankrupt welfare states.
• The OECD is pushing a “Multilateral Convention” that is designed to become something akin to a World Tax Organization, with the power to persecute nations with free-market tax policy.
• The OECD has endorsed Obama’s class-warfare agenda, publishing documents endorsing “higher marginal tax rates” so that the so-called rich “contribute their fair share.”
• The OECD pulled off a hat trick of bad policy in a 2010 document, promoting a value-added tax, Obama’s global warming agenda, and failed Keynesian stimulus.
• The OECD endorsed Obamacare, as I explain in this video.
• The OECD even advocates higher taxes when nations are in the middle of economic crisis.

With this dismal track record, it’s hardly a surprise that the Paris-based bureaucracy is now pushing to undermine prosperity in Latin America. Here’s some of what the OECD said in its release.

Additional tax revenues enable governments to simultaneously improve their competitiveness and promote social cohesion through increased spending on education, infrastructure and innovation. Latin American countries have made great strides over the past two decades in raising tax revenues.

You won’t be surprised when I tell you that the Paris-based bureaucrats do not bother to provide even the tiniest shred of proof to support the silly claim that higher taxes improve competitiveness. But that shouldn’t be surprising since even Keynesians don’t believe something that absurd.

And the claim about social cohesion also is a bit of a stretch given the riots, chaos, and social disarray in many European nations.

The only accurate part of the passage is that Latin American nations have increased tax burdens over the past 20 years. To the tax-free bureaucrats at the OECD, that is making “great strides.”

Let’s see what else the OECD had to say.

Despite these improvements, significant gaps between Latin America and OECD countries remain. The average tax to GDP ratio in OECD countries is much higher than in Latin American countries (33.8% compared to 19.2% in 2009, respectively). As the countries in the region still find themselves in relatively strong economic conditions, now is the time to consider reforms that generate long-term, stable resources for governments to finance development.

Wow. The OECD is implying that Latin American nations should mimic OECD nations. In other words, the bureaucrats in Paris apparently think it makes sense to tell nations to copy the failed high-tax, welfare-state model of countries such as Greece, Italy, and Spain.

Is that really the lesson they think people should learn from recent fiscal history? Are they really so oblivious and/or blinded by ideology that they issued the release as these European nations are in the middle of a fiscal crisis?

To further demonstrate their bias, the folks at the OECD even acknowledged that the Latin American nations, with their less oppressive tax regimes, are enjoying “relatively strong economic conditions.” Normal people would therefore conclude that the failed high-tax European nation should copy Latin America on fiscal policy, not the other way around. But not the geniuses at the OECD.

Now that we’ve addressed the awful policy advice of the OECD, let’s take a moment to look at the real policy challenges facing Latin America.

The Fraser Institute, in cooperation with dozens of other research organizations around the world, produces every year a comprehensive survey measuring Economic Freedom of the World.

The report ranks 141 nations based on dozens of variables that are used to construct scores for five key measures of economic freedom. Of those five categories, the Latin nations have the highest average ranking on…you guessed it…fiscal policy.

Yet the OECD wants policies that will undermine the competitiveness of the Latin nations, hurting them in the area where they are doing a halfway decent job.

If the bureaucrats actually wanted to boost economic performance in Latin America, they would be pressuring those nations to make reforms in the two areas where the burden of government is most severe—legal structure/property rights and regulation.

But that would make sense, which is contrary to the OECD’s mission of promoting statism.

The only semi-positive thing to say about the OECD is that it is consistent. As this video explains, the Paris-based bureaucrats are advocating bigger government in the United States. And to add insult to injury, they’re using American tax dollars to push that agenda.

What a scam. Politicians from various nations send taxpayer money to Paris. The bureaucrats at the OECD then issue reports and studies saying the politicians in those countries should raise taxes and increase the burden of government. Everybody wins…except for taxpayers and the global economy.

Per dollar spent, OECD subsidies may be the most destructively wasteful part of the federal budget. And that says a lot.

Acting as the Typhoid Mary of the Global Economy, the OECD Urges Higher Taxes in Latin America is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

E.J. Dionne was in high dudgeon at the Washington Post this morning over Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s January 2010 campaign finance decision that ever since has driven the Left into fits of apoplexy. Taking his cue from Obama’s infamous State-of-the-Union condemnation of the Court shortly after the decision came down, plus the class warfare meme at the core of Obama’s reelection campaign, Dionne attacks not only the Court’s wisdom but its motives:

A more troubling interpretation [than “naiveté”] is that a conservative majority knew exactly what it was doing: that it set out to remake our political system by fiat in order to strengthen the hand of corporations and the wealthy. Seen this way, Citizens United was an attempt by five justices to push future electoral outcomes in a direction that would entrench their approach to governance.

Indeed, the Court’s decision “should be seen as part of a larger initiative by moneyed conservatives to rig the electoral system against their opponents,” Dionne continues. Pointing to recent state legislation aimed at ensuring electoral integrity, such as voter ID laws, he charges that “conservatives are strengthening the hand of the rich at one end of the system and weakening the voting power of the poor at the other.”

Reading this screed you’d think that the moneyed classes, including corporations, were all on the Right. Yet as the Post itself reported last fall, “despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate.” Indeed, “Obama has outdone Romney on his own turf, collecting $76,600 from Bain Capital employees through September – and he needed only three donors to do it.”

So let’s get that white-hat/black-hat silliness out of the way and turn to the charge that the Court “set out to remake our political system by fiat.” The charge, if you read the majority’s opinion, is preposterous on its face. Only Justice Stevens has clung to the idea that money is not speech. (Want proof that it is? How much speech have you heard from the presidential campaign of former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, who accepts no contributions over $100?) Well if money is speech, then the First Amendment tells us, straightforwardly, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”

Regrettably, despite that simple imperative, the Court has allowed numerous restrictions on the contributions side of the campaign finance ledger. But in Citizens United it opened the door to those who speak through their corporations or unions (the Left’s outrage is directed only to the corporations side of the decision, of course), provided the spending is not coordinated with the candidate. Thus, far from having torn down “a century’s worth of law” – Dionne alludes to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporations from giving directly to candidates – Citizens United simply repealed a provision of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act that prohibited corporate and union expenditures on independent, non-candidate coordinated campaigns.

But Dionne’s confusion doesn’t end there. Like almost every other Leftist, he attributes the rise of super PACs, his main target, to the decision in Citizens United. But it was the March 2010 DC Circuit’s decision in Speech Now v. FEC that brought about those entities. And almost all super PACs are funded by individuals, not corporations or unions. What Speech Now did was lift the ban on individual contributions of more than $5,000 when individuals get together to speak through Political Action Committees that are independent of candidates.

Dionne abhors those PACs, of course. So do the candidates, because they have no control over what “their” PACs say. (“Save me from my friends!”) Far better it would be if contributors were able to give directly to a candidate’s campaign. This is a big country, with over 300 million people and millions of corporations and unions. Are we really to believe, with so many potential contributors, that candidates for federal office would be easily bought and sold if that were allowed? Well in states with few campaign finance restrictions for state offices – where the number of potential contributors is substantially smaller – the evidence simply does not support the wild charges of corruption that so animate the Dionnes of the world. But what is evidence when your real agenda is class warfare?

E.J. Dionne on Campaign Finance as Class Warfare is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

In recent weeks, officials from two states have claimed that if they do not set up an ObamaCare health insurance “Exchange,” the state will lose federal Medicaid or State Children’s Health Insurance Program funds. Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R), has since walked back that claim. New Hampshire Commissioner of Health and Human Services Nicholas Toumpas has not.

In a January 19 letter to the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Toumpas writes:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) mandates that states create a virtual health coverage marketplace called an Exchange. To ensure compliance with this federal mandate the law provides that having an Exchange in place by January 1, 2014, is a condition precedent to receipt of Medicaid funding commencing in 2014.

I have not heard the Obama administration or any other ObamaCare supporter claim that the law contains such a mandate. I have made inquiries in a handful of states. None of them report that the Obama administration has said that failing to create an Exchange will result in the loss of Medicaid or SCHIP funds. If what Toumpas says is true, it will certainly come as a shock to the 35 states that have not enacted legislation to create an Exchange, including many states that have flat-out refused.

But is it true? Parts of ObamaCare might seem to support Toumpas’ claim.

• Section 1311 declares that each state “shall” set up an Exchange.
• The law also imposes conditions on the receipt of federal Medicaid and SCHIP funds, and those provisions do make reference to Exchanges. Section 2101 provides that, with regard to certain children who are not eligible for SCHIP, states receiving federal SCHIP funds “shall establish procedures to ensure that the children are enrolled in a qualified health plan that…is offered through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311.”
• Section 2201 provides that as a condition of receiving federal Medicaid funds, states “shall establish procedures for” several things, including “ensuring that individuals who apply for but are determined to be ineligible for [Medicaid and SCHIP] are screened for eligibility for enrollment in qualified health plans offered through such an Exchange.” The words “such an Exchange” refer to the words “an Exchange established by the State under section 1311,” which appear a few lines before.

Thus, sections 2101 and 2201 might seem to require states to establish an Exchange so that the required “procedures” can interface with it. But there are serious problems with that interpretation.

First, the directive that states “shall” create Exchanges does not amend that part of the U.S. code where Congress imposes conditions on Medicaid and SCHIP funds—i.e., the Social Security Act, or chapter 7 of title 42. It instead appears in chapter 157, which is also where Congress explains that the consequence for failing to create an Exchange is that the federal government will create one.

Second, sections 2101 and 2201 provide, respectively, that states “shall establish procedures to” enroll certain children through a state-run Exchange, and that states “shall establish procedures for” enabling the state’s Medicaid-eligibility system to coordinate with a state-run Exchange. One need not diagram those sentences to see that the object of “shall establish” is “procedures,” not “Exchange.”

Third, ObamaCare does create these “coordination” conditions within the Social Security Act. That fact demonstrates that ObamaCare’s authors knew how to make the directive to create an Exchange an explicit condition of receiving Medicaid and SCHIP funds, if that’s what they wanted to do.

Fourth, if ObamaCare’s authors had intended to condition Medicaid and SCHIP funds on the creation of Exchanges, or if that were a defensible interpretation of the law as written, then one might expect to have heard members of Congress discussing it. One might expect the Obama administration to have informed states of this condition as part of their effort to encourage states to implement the law. I have been paying fairly close attention to this issue. I have seen no evidence of either.

Fifth, the Supreme Court has held that “if Congress desires to condition the States’ receipt of federal funds, it must do so unambiguously, enabling the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.” It is simply not credible to argue that ObamaCare unambiguously conditions Medicaid and SCHIP funds on the creation of an Exchange. The law never does so explicitly, and the language and structure of the law militate against the claim that it does so implicitly.

A more reasonable interpretation of these conditions is that states will be in compliance so long as they have the required procedures at the ready—regardless of whether those procedures are coordinating with a state-created Exchange, a federal Exchange, or no Exchange (in the event that neither level of government creates one).

I have no doubt that, had ObamaCare’s authors had any inkling that two thirds of states might balk at setting up an Exchange, they would have made it a condition of Medicaid and SCHIP participation. But they didn’t foresee the widespread resistance ObamaCare would encounter. When drafting ObamaCare and for some time afterward, they honestly thought, “The more people learn about this bill, the more they [will] like it.” Thus they didn’t create that requirement.

If Toumpas is the only state or federal official who sees this mandate in the law, that’s probably because it isn’t there. Just as important, there is no evidence that the Obama administration sees or is enforcing such a requirement. If Toumpas has such evidence, he should furnish it.

Until then, New Hampshire and the other 49 states can be confident that refusing to create an Exchange will not cost them Medicaid or SCHIP funds.

Will States Lose Medicaid Funds If They Fail to Create an ObamaCare ‘Exchange’? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Those who advocate for more restrictions on campaign finance generally practice a populist politics. They fulminate against the influence of money, demonize donors, and ascribe all the nation’s problems to Citizens United. Once you have read an example such reformist rhetoric, you have read all of them. (But if you must read more, here’s E.J. Dionne’s recent, especially over-the-top offering in the genre).

But not all critics of campaign finance are so intellectually empty. Consider the recent op-ed by liberal law professor Geoffrey Stone. He addresses the question: “Is money speech?” For the conventional reformer, of course, money is not speech. Some even wish to amend the Constitution to recognize what they take to be the obvious truth that money is not speech. Stone shows why they are wrong. He remarks, “Not a single justice of the United States Supreme Court who has voted in any of the more than a dozen cases involving the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations, regardless of which way he or she came out in the case, has ever embraced the position that money is not speech.”

Stone says the correct question to ask is “When should the government be allowed to regulate political contributions and expenditures — even if they are speech?”

Regarding expenditures, the Supreme Court has for some time answered this question with “never.” Limits on spending abridge the freedom of speech. That answer makes sense. If any speech implicates “the freedom of speech,” political speech does. If spending funds political speech, the “make no law” admonition in the First Amendment applies to such spending.

The Court has also been especially hostile to government regulations of the content of speech. But campaign finance regulations are always content-based. Most seek to advance a partisan cause expressed in speech. Others seek to suppress speech critical of current officeholders. The rest hope to cut funding to speech that they see as ideologically “incorrect.”

Let’s face it: few would care about campaign finance regulations if such rules did not give hope of suppressing speech they disdain and thereby the triumph of a cause they hold dear. Campaign finance regulations should always be suspect in a nation that values in fact as well as words “the freedom of speech.”

As It Turns Out, Money Is Speech is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog