United Liberty

Nearly everyone in opposition to ObamaCare worked very hard to stop it before it made its way through both houses of Congress and to the President’s desk to be signed into law.  Once President Obama signed the legislation into law, all of these wound up activists found themselves without an issue to focus on after a year of “debate” over healthcare reform.  Some state officials took it upon themselves to file lawsuits over the newly signed law, while others sought to protect their constituents from the aspects they found to be Unconstitutional.  Today, the Tenth Amendment Center provided another state-level action.  From the press release:

“Now that Health Care reform has been signed into law, the question people ask most is “What do we do about it?” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. “The status quo response includes lobbying congress, marching on D.C. “voting the bums out,” suing in federal court, and more. But the last 100 years have proven that none of these really work, and government continues to grow year in and year out.”

“We recommend a different path, one advised by prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - nullification,” said Boldin. Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

This week, Brett was re-joined by Jason and UL contributor, Jeff Scott, also from the Jeff Scott Show.

This week’s topics include:

This week, Brett was joined by UL contributor, Doug Mataconis, and Brooklyn Roberts, Executive Director of the Alabama Eagle Forum.  Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond his control, Jason was unable to participate, so we had a blast without him.

This week’s topics include:

The Washington Post, of all places, explains today why the CBO numbers released yesterday should not be trusted:

The latest estimate of what health-care reform would mean for the government’s finances was such a hot document Thursday that at times the Congressional Budget Office’s Web site couldn’t handle the traffic.

But as much as the 25-page “score” of the legislation was treated as holy writ in Washington — Democrats eagerly flagged its conclusion that the package they aim to pass this weekend would cut the deficit by $138 billion over the coming decade — the reality is considerably messier.

Budget experts generally have high praise for the work of CBO analysts, the non-ideological technocrats who crunch the numbers to estimate the fiscal impact of legislation. But their work is often more art than science, and although the forecasts that accompany legislation are always filled with uncertainty, this one contains more than most.

One major reason is the sheer complexity of the legislation. If Congress were considering, say, a 20-cent increase in the gasoline tax, the CBO could easily analyze how that would affect gas consumption and do some simple math to calculate how much money it would raise. The same goes for figuring out the cost of legislation that offers a new benefit, such as an expansion of food stamps.

I just read Matt Wittlief’s thoughts on Scott Brown, and since I have only tweeted about the Massachusetts special election and talked about it on the radio, I must be falling behind as a “political blogger” myself.  I started this as a comment, but my opinions turned this into a post itself.

As I see it, the GOP needed solidarity in the Senate (41 votes) to derail ObamaCare, and Scott Brown is that 41st vote for ObamaCare in 2010. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it, Scott Brown is nothing more than a “short term compromise.” His positions are not that different from Coakley, when you compare them across the board for all three candidates that ran. He also supported RomneyCare in Massachusetts a few short years ago. His support of government intervention into the marketplace is unquestionable, and he confirmed it with his comments on Wednesday, that every libertarian that tweets or is on Facebook cited.

Jason and Brett traveled to Birmingham, Alabama this weekend, gathering quite a panel to discuss the political news of the week.  They were joined by Charles Kennedy, Austin Wilkes, Shana Kluck, Stephen Gordon, and Brooklyn Roberts.

The discussion covered:

In analyzing the data from the latest polls coming from Massachusetts with regard to the upcoming special election on January 19th, I have some things to note.

• Rasmussen polled 500 likely voters on January 4, releasing their results the following day.
• The Boston Globe polled 554 likely voters January 2-6, releasing their results this morning.
• Public Policy Polling polled 744 likely voters January 7-9, releasing their results last night. (full .pdf of the results available there)

Beginning linearly with the commencement of the polls, the Boston Globe began first, though it concluded on the 6th. It was not released until this morning, but I think that its results were not influenced by Rasmussen’s numbers, as Rasmussen conducted their poll in the midst, releasing the results toward the end.  They also included Joe Kennedy as an option, whereas neither of the other polls did.  Who knows why it took the Globe four days to release their results, but I think for the time their polling spanned, it is likely accurate.

On November 16th, the national debt for our nation broke the $12 trillion dollar mark.  Jason, Brett and Doug had joked on Twitter about getting together to “celebrate” this accomplishment by having a few drinks.  Since geography prevented us from meeting together in a physical location, we took this opportunity to officially toast to the federal government’s mortgage of our futures and those of future generations with their out of control spending.

Joining us as a guest for such a “joyous” occasion, we were joined by Mike Hassinger, a political consultant with Landmark Communications.

Together, they discuss:

Yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters that the House version of the health care legislation will cost under $900 billion and reduce the deficit, claiming to have estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO, in its score of ObamaCare in the Senate and in previous preliminary scores, pointed out any budgetary savings aren’t a given:

The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

Uncertainty or skepticism over projected budget savings is entirely reasonable because history shows these estimates to be entirely inaccurate, at the Wall Street Journal points out:

In my last post, I outlined my thoughts on a more ideal health care system. I recognize that these thoughts describe a system which is much different than what we have today. Justified criticism is often directed towards such ideas for being too ideological, theoretical, or impractical. So, I’d like to close my series on health care (for now) with some ideas which may be more practical. I do recognize that some of these ideas may be politically untenable at this time and also concede that true health care reform requires hours and hours of research beyond what I’m able to provide. Here is my six-point plan for reform.

1. Authorize and Promote the Establishment of Health Care Subscription Programs

As noted in my thoughts on a more ideal health care system, the idea of a health and wellness subscription service seems like a great idea. Such a service may not be technically illegal today (I have not researched this), but the regulatory system and network of insurance providers are not aligned with such a model. This is not fundamentally different than prepaid health care which is a more accurate description of today’s health “insurance” products. I would allow Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare Advantage plans to use federal dollars towards such programs if the patient chooses to do so.

2. Provide Significant Tax Incentives for Private and Corporate Donations to Non-Profit Health Care Providers