CBO Report on Repealing Obamacare and Voxsplaining Muddy Interpretations

aca

The Supreme Court decision on ACA — The Affordable Care Act or the always evocative Obamacare — could be handed down this morning and, because no one seems to have a really good read on which way The Court will go  (Chief Justice Roberts shocked many a conservative the last time he took a long, hard look at this legislation, remember?), there have been some rather interesting stories coming out in preparation for whatever the decision may be.

The Huffington Post, for example, calls the divide over the public’s taste for the law “ambivalence”, and suggests it really comes down to partisanship. Of course, saying that someone likes or dislikes Obamacare BECAUSE they’re one party or the other is silly. It’s probably more true to say someone identifies with one party over another BECAUSE of policies like Obamacare:

The Supreme Court could issue a ruling in King v. Burwell, the lawsuit threatening to undermine a key part of the Affordable Care Act, as early as Monday. But the debate over President Barack Obama’s controversial health care law is likely to continue no matter how the justices rule. And one reason is that Americans, on the whole, remain deeply ambivalent about it…

The first and more obvious factor is partisanship. No single characteristic better predicts how a person feels about the health care law than his or her partisan affiliation. Republicans tend to think the law is a failure, while Democrats tend to think it’s a success — most likely because they are reacting to the party leaders and news sources they trust and distrust and because they have genuine philosophical differences about the law’s virtues.

One Take: The Supreme Court Will Not Redefine Marriage

marriageequality

Any day now, the United States Supreme Court will issue its ruling on one of the most controversial issues in recent memory - the legal definition of “marriage”. If asked, most Americans would probably say the issue was decided a few years ago when the Supreme Court ruled in Windsor v. United States that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. However, that case did not decide the legal definition of marriage; it ruled on whether the federal government could deny spousal benefits to spouses of same-sex federal employees in states where homosexual “marriage” was legal. Since then, one federal court after another struck down the marriage laws in dozens of states, the judges substituting their philosophical preferences the clear text of the Constitution. Those dominoes stopped falling with a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals last November.

Writing for the majority, Judge Jeffrey Sutton stated

United Liberty Owner Going Grassroots

pensive rand paul

Concerned American Voters is making waves as the new Super PAC on the block. Beyond filling a need in the Rand Paul campaign, it’s also gathering talent from all around the liberty movement. United Liberty’s own Martin Avila is joining the team as their Senior Tech Strategist - a generally unsurprising move since Avila did work for the Ron Paul 2008 campaign.

Avila will be joining Matt Kibbe, who is leaving FreedomWorks to join the newly formed Super PAC as their Senior Advisor. “Politics is more decentralized today and that makes insurgent candidates like Rand Paul more competitive,” Kibbe stated. “This is a big test for the liberty movement and I think our moment to deliver is now.”

As for the United Liberty family of writers, while Avila will be working with Concerned American Voters PAC, the UL site will continue to offer free thoughts on free markets and smaller government, even if the writers don’t happen to agree with the PAC. “I think we deserve all fair scrutiny just like any other organization,” Kibbe explained.

While Avila is not leaving UL behind, he also isn’t starting work with strangers. He and Kibbe have both worked together before, and with the PAC’s president, Jeff Frazee. Kibbe comes from FreedomWorks, Frazee comes from Young Americans for Liberty, and Avila has worked with both organizations.

As We Await Word on The King v. Burwell Decision, Let’s Revisit Why It’s Before SCOTUS: The Disaster of Cover Oregon

cover oregon

Like dominos crashing in a row, many States are realizing their Obamacare exchanges are either bleeding money, on the brink of insolvency, or sadly shutting down their State controlled operations and placing their citizens’ healthcare under the federal exchange and Washington bureaucrats.

According to a recent and important story in The Hill, many of the 13 states that established their own health care exchanges under ObamaCare are fearful they won’t survive when federal dollars dry up next year. Hawaii is the most recent to give up independent operations. Democratic Gov. David Ide put it best when he revealed the Health Connector was “unable to generate sufficient revenues to sustain operations.”

Hawaii isn’t the only exchange experiencing trouble in paradise. Nevada discovered more than 1,500 defects embedded in the site last year and joined the federal exchange. Colorado, Minnesota, and Vermont are next likely to remove the constant and ever-increasing drain on their state’s budget and shutter their failed exchanges. But none of these failures are close to matching the man-made disaster that is Cover Oregon, the Beaver State’s version of ObamaCare.

The story of Oregon’s health care portal is a story of waste, fraud, and potentially criminal abuse. Once the darling of the Obama White House, the truth has been steadily emerging. Congressional hearings should not merely detail the vast waste of taxpayers dollars but shine sunlight on facts so blatantly illegal that even President Obama’s own Department of Justice will be forced to finally begin necessary criminal proceedings in this case.

No.

No.

No.

Hillary 2016: Inevitable? Not So Much.

“Mrs. Clinton, can you please tell us why you believe you’d be a good president, rather than a third term of President Obama’s economically and socially disastrous presidency?”

Editor’s Note: Originally published at The Ancient & Noble Order of the Gormogons.

 

‘Puter’s Democrat friends are pushing Hillary Clinton like mad. “Hillary’s the greatest thing EVAH!!1! and will totes beat any Republican,” they tell ‘Puter. Are ‘Puter’s friends right? Is a Hillary Clinton presidency inevitable?

‘Puter thinks Mrs. Clinton’s in far more trouble in 2016 than Democrats want to admit. Here’s why.

Jeb’s Exclamation Point Turned Out to Be Accurate: “I Will Run To Win”

Jeb!

“It is time to start making rules for the rulemakers.” - Jeb Bush

Well, he’s in. Offically.

As his mother, Barbara, the former first lady, looked on, Mr. Bush directly confronted the central doubt looming over his campaign: that he presents the latest incarnation of a tired dynasty and is entitled to the Republican nomination by virtue of his surname.

“Not a one of us deserves the job by right of resume, party, seniority, family, or family narrative,” Mr. Bush said inside a community college gymnasium. “It’s nobody’s turn. It’s everybody’s test.”

In declaring his presidential bid before a cheering crowd at Miami Dade College, Mr. Bush promised to remove Washington as an obstacle to effective government and economic prosperity by declaring that “America deserves better.”

He said all the right things to keep the base interested — small government, disrupting the culture of Washington, staying true to his principles, Obamacare and religious freedom, teaching Congress how to use veto power to protect taxpayers, a dwindling military, renewing ties with allies around the world, etc. — but he was also quite savvy on some of the issues he knows the base cocks an eyebrow toward, namely immigration and education.

But he handled those fairly comfortably as well, speaking to the humanity of special needs children and answering immigration hecklers attacking him from the left with a promise to pass immigration reform:

No, Tennessee Does Not Have the “Most Regressive” Tax System

[Editor’s note: This piece originally appeared on the Beacon Center of Tennessee’s blog.]

New Net Neutrality Order Is a Nadir for the First Amendment & Internet Freedom

censored press

If a court affirms the FCC’s ruling that broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) have no right to exercise editorial discretion over Internet transmissions on their networks, the First Amendment could not stop the government from censoring the transmissions of end users on ISP networks.

The First Amendment is premised on a simple idea: Ensuring mass media communications are free of government control is a “precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” Though this principle should be obvious, it has been lost in application to the Internet age. In its recent order adopting net neutrality rules and reclassifying Internet access as a common carrier service subject to telephone regulation (“Net Neutrality Order”), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concluded that Internet transmissions on networks operated by broadband Internet service providers are not entitled to protection from government control. According to the FCC, the transmission of Internet communications is not constitutionally protected speech, because it is not “inherently expressive.” The FCC relied on this conclusion to justify its decision to regulate the Internet as if it were a plain old telephone network that transmits only common carrier communications.

OECD Scheme to Boost Taxes on Business Sector Will Hurt Economy and Enable Bigger Government

Originally posted at Mitchell’s blog International Liberty.

 

Citing the work of David Burton and Richard Rahn, I warned last July about the dangerous consequences of allowing governments to create a global tax cartel based on the collection and sharing of sensitive personal financial information.

I was focused on the danger to individuals, but it’s also risky to let governments obtain more data from businesses.

Remarkably, even the World Bank acknowledges the downside of giving more information to governments.

Here are some blurbs from the abstract of a new study looking at what happens when companies divulge more data.

Relying on a data set of more than 70,000 firms in 121 countries, the analysis finds that disclosure can be a double-edged sword. …The findings reveal the dark side of voluntary information disclosure: exposing firms to government expropriation.

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.