The Elder Statement : CATO Institute

Showing posts with label CATO Institute. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

From both sides of the bars

From Jailer to Jailed: Bernard Kerik’s Story (Audio)

By Libertarianism.org, May 25, 2015

Source: www.libertarianism.org

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Oh, no, not common sense

elderstatement.com May 28, 2015 Amtrak Funding , Amtrak Privatisation 0 Comments

ICYMI: "Privatizing Amtrak"

By Tad DeHaven, une 2010, CATO Institute

Overview
History
Money-Losing Routes
Poor Service Quality
Costly Workforce
Privatization

Overview

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, is the federal organization that operates passenger rail service in the United States. It was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. Amtrak is structured as a corporation, but its board members are appointed by the president of the United States and virtually all its stock is owned by the federal government.1 Amtrak has about 19,000 employees, and its annual revenues were $2.4 billion in 2009.2

Amtrak has been providing second-rate train service for almost four decades, while consuming almost $40 billion in federal subsidies. The system has never earned a profit and most of its routes lose money. Amtrak's on-time record is very poor, and the system as a whole only accounts for 0.1 percent of America's passenger travel.3 Another problem is that Amtrak's infrastructure is in bad shape. Most of the blame for Amtrak's woes should be pinned on Congress, which insists on supporting an extensive, nationwide system of passenger rail that doesn't make economic sense.

The solution is to privatize and deregulate passenger rail. Varying degrees of private involvement in passenger rail have been pursued abroad, such as in Australia, Britain, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand. Privatization would allow Amtrak greater flexibility in its finances, in capital investment, and in the operation of its services—free from costly meddling by Congress.

Read the full story: www.downsizinggovernment.org

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Saturday, May 9, 2015

And So Is Dr. Ben Carson!

elderstatement.com May 09, 2015 CATO Institute , Donald J. Boudreaux 0 Comments

Reich Is Wrong On The Minimum Wage

By Donald J. Boudreaux, May 8, 2015, Cato.org

Watching Robert Reich’s new video in which he endorses raising the minimum wage by $7.75 per hour – to $15 per hour – is painful. It hurts to encounter such rapid-fire economic ignorance, even if the barrage lasts for only two minutes.

Perhaps the most remarkable flaw in this video is Reich’s manner of addressing the bedrock economic objection to the minimum wage – namely, that minimum wage prices some low-skilled workers out of jobs. Ignoring supply-and-demand analysis (which depicts the correct common-sense understanding that the higher the minimum wage, the lower is the quantity of unskilled workers that firms can profitably employ), Reich asserts that a higher minimum wage enables workers to spend more money on consumer goods which, in turn, prompts employers to hire more workers.

Reich apparently believes that his ability to describe and draw such a “virtuous circle” of increased spending and hiring is reason enough to dismiss the concerns of “scare-mongers” (his term) who worry that raising the price of unskilled labor makes such labor less attractive to employers.

Read the full story: www.cato.org

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Sunday, January 25, 2015

"distinct problems and disadvantages under current system"

Staff January 25, 2015 African American Demographic , Blacks 0 Comments

"The African American Stake in Soc Sec Reform"

Michael D. Tanner, Feb. 5, 2001, CATO

Yet Social Security is facing a financial crisis. Within 15 years, the program will begin running a deficit, spending more on benefits than it takes in through taxes. The Social Security Trust Fund, which is supposed to continue paying benefits until 2037, is really little more than a collection of IOU’s. Without an enormous tax increase, Social Security will not be able to pay all the benefits that have been promised. That would be devastating for African-American seniors.

Read more: www.cato.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, January 16, 2015

Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers

Staff January 16, 2015 CATO Institute , Education 0 Comments

Public Schooling’s Pluralism Problem And The School Choice Solution

Jason Bedrick, Jan. 9, 2015, CATO

In reality though, it’s the idea that so-called “public” schools are actually “public” that is only half-true. District schools are technically open to any student whose parents can afford to live in the district, but they are certainly not “intended to serve entire communities.” For example, they are not intended to serve Orthodox Jews or others like them who have a different vision of education. When everyone is forced to pay for one school system and decisions about education are made via a political process, there will be winners and losers.

Read more: www.cato.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, December 11, 2014

What about nuke-seeking Islamofascists?

elderstatement.com December 11, 2014 CATO Institute , David Boaz 0 Comments

ICYMI: Stossel--What Is A Libertarian Foreign Policy?

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Monday, November 3, 2014

Isn't that obvious?

elderstatement.com November 03, 2014 14th Amendment , CATO Institute 0 Comments

Federalism Doesn’t Mean That States Can Do Whatever They Want

Ilya Shapiro, Oct. 27, 2014, Cato At Liberty

Cato and the Constitutional Accountability Center have filed another amicus brief in a marriage case, this one challenging Louisiana’s restriction of marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples and its non-recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—where last month we filed in a case out of Texas—this is an appeal from the only ruling to uphold a state marriage law since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act. (A federal judge in Puerto Rico also recently upheld that commonwealth’s law.)

Our previous briefs, including in that Texas case and also regarding the marriage laws of Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Wisconsin in the Tenth, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, respectively, focused on the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and its guarantee of “equality under law” for all. Here, however, we focus on federalism, democracy, and why states shouldn’t automatically get judicial deference when they pass legislation.

Read more: www.cato.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, October 3, 2014

Don't tell me...Califirnia?

elderstatement.com October 03, 2014 California Governor Jerry Brown , CATO Institute 0 Comments

Guess Who's Last? CATO's Grading Of Governors Fiscal Policies

California Governor Jerry Brown

By Scott Shackford, Oct. 2, 2014, Reason.com

The Cato Institute released a report grading governors across the country over their recent fiscal policies and how well they've tried to rein in taxes and spending. The good news,according to Cato experts Chris Edwards and Nicole Kaedig, is that "we are in the midst of the best tax-cutting run since the late 1990s."

The governors ranking at the top of the list of fiscal responsibility were all Republicans while the governors at the bottom were all Democrats. There were some Dems with pretty good scores, though, like Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Andrew Cuomo of New York, both of whom have worked to make their tax environments more friendly and competitive for businesses.

Ranking dead last on the list, and it's not even really close, is California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has pushed forward big tax increases and budget increases and still wants to throw billions of dollars at the boondoggle of a high-speed rail. He scores a mere 19 points out of 100. The four governors earning A's from Cato were Pat McCrory of North Carolina, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Paul LePage of Maine, and Mike Pence of Indiana, all Republicans.

Read the full story: www.reason.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, August 7, 2014

FLASHBACK (2009): We Warned You About Obamanomics--We Really Tried --Unfortunately, We Were Right

elderstatement.com August 07, 2014 CATO Institute , Obamanomics 1 Comments

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Father of Obamacare Makes a "Speak-O" By Larry Elder

elderstatement.com July 31, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , CATO Institute 0 Comments

Jonathan Gruber, the architect of both
Romneycare and Obamacare
Source: www.townhall.com

By Larry Elder, Jul. 31, 2014

Last week, by 2-1 vote, a Washington, D.C., appellate panel ruled that the Obama administration unlawfully changed Obamacare. Meanwhile, on the same day, on the same question, a panel from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the other way. This issue is headed for the Supreme Court.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, is -- according to CNBC -- the "intellectual godfather" of what is perhaps Obamacare's most serious court challenge. Cannon says when Congress drafted Obamacare, they made it clear: Tax credits, grants and other subsidies would be available only to those enrollees who sign up via state-funded exchanges.

Right after the appellate court decision, Cannon told me; "The way the [ACA] law works ... and it's all there in black and white, the statute gives states the ability to veto certain parts of the law's regulatory scheme, including the subsidies that shift from enrollees in the health insurance exchanges the cost of their very expensive insurance ... to the taxpayers. That's what those subsidies are there for, to shift those costs from the enrollee to the taxpayer. States have the power to veto those subsidies, and all they have to do is not cooperate -- not implement the law by creating a health insurance exchange or doing other things."

But only 14 states agreed to set up their own exchanges. So Obama simply picked up his pen and rewrote the law to give the tax credits to the federal exchange as well.

Cannon says: "So what these lawsuits are about is the people who are being injured by that decision by the administration -- the people who are being subject to those taxes, those penalties, even though they are by law exempt, saying, no, wait a second, what you are doing here is illegal. The law is clear; you don't have the authority to implement those provisions where states have vetoed them. Congress gave states that power. If you want to call this a glitch, you can call it a glitch, but it's a glitch that has to be fixed by Congress, because that's who writes the laws in this country -- not the IRS, not the executive. If you want to fix the law, go back to Congress."

Defenders of the administration's decision claim that Congress actually just made a boo-boo, a drafting error, an unintentional mistake by not giving the fed exchange the same benefits. And therefore Obama's interpretation is simply following the intention of Congress.

But Jonathan Gruber, the architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare, admitted in early 2012 that Congress wanted credits to go only to state exchanges, and the feds used this as an inducement to "squeeze" the states into setting up their own state-run exchanges: "The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its [health insurance exchange] backstop, I think, partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying to your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country."

A week earlier, Gruber said: "By not setting up an exchange, the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars. ... That is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens."

Flash forward, and once the appellate panel decisions came in, Gruber changed his tune: "We can go to the people who wrote it and say did you ever intend this as a poison pill or is it a typo every single one says it's a typo? And every single one of them will say this is just a typo. So there is no mystery here."

And three days later, Gruber was confronted with his 2012 statements that subsidies are tied to state exchanges. His explanation? Gruber said: "I was speaking off the cuff. It was just a mistake. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o -- you know, like a typo."

Expect SCOTUS again to come down 5-4. But this time Justice Roberts will get it right. As Cannon put it: "This is not a constitutional challenge to the law. It's not asking any court to strike down the law. It's actually asking them to uphold the law."

Respected leftwing law professor Laurence Tribe, who once taught Obama, supports Obama's action. But he concedes that the administration faces an uphill battle. "I don't have a crystal ball," said Tribe. "But I wouldn't bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare."

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Larry Interviews Michael Cannon, The Godfather Of The OCare Fed/State Exchange Challenge

elderstatement.com July 26, 2014 CATO Institute , Jonathan Gruber 0 Comments

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, July 10, 2014

DOW at 17,000 -- But You're Not Invited By Larry Elder

elderstatement.com July 10, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , CATO Institute 1 Comments

Larry Elder, Jul. 10, 2014

The stock market reached a record high last week, closing over 17,000 for the first time. Good news, of course. As President John F. Kennedy famously said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." But it sure helps if you own a boat.

In this case, the "boat" would be the dynamic American stock market.

But investors in the stock market disproportionately come from the top 1 percent, and they hold about 35 percent of all stocks and mutual funds. The next-richest 9 percent control about 45 percent. The remaining 90 percent have less than 20 percent. While nearly half of Americans have either direct or indirect investments in the stock market, half of Americans do not. And even for those who do, their home equity is still, by far, their largest investment.

President Obama wants to focus his remaining years in office on fighting "income inequality." To do so, he has proposed things like "promise zones" where federal grants and tax incentives is supposed to spark development. He has promoted silly income-transferring schemes like "cash for clunkers" and "cash for caulkers," and HAMP to help homeowners fight off foreclosure.

But there is something we could do immediately to help to increase the net worth of the bottom 99 percent -- allow private accounts for Social Security.

Chile recently celebrated its 33rd year of private retirement accounts. Its then-secretary of labor and Chilean pension system, Jose Pinera, went on television day after day to explain to cabdrivers, housewives and construction workers the benefits of allowing private savings accounts.

Pinera successfully persuaded 93 percent of Chilean workers to invest their "social security" contributions in one of several types of managed portfolios. Those who feared the "risk" of the stock market could continue as they did before. While U.S. workers pay 12.4 percent of their wages into Social Security, Chileans put 10 percent (or up to 20 percent) of their earnings into a private fund, earning compound interest. On retirement, workers can choose a life annuity or make programmed withdrawals. Heirs inherit what's left.

The result? Chilean workers averaged a near double-digit annual return on their money -- 9.23 percent above inflation -- over the first 30 years. In the U.S., Social Security nets a theoretical 1 to 2 percent return -- less for newer workers. Not only do they allow private accounts for "social security" in Chile, but also in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Columnist John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in 2005, calculated what his retirement benefits would be if he'd paid into the Chilean system instead of Social Security. He found he'd have three options: "(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. (2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. (3) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000."

Social Security is an especially bad deal for blacks.

CATO Institute's Michael Tanner writes: "The longer you live, the more money you get from Social Security. But African Americans have shorter life spans than whites. As a result, a black man or woman earning exactly the same lifetime wages, and paying exactly the same lifetime Social Security taxes as his or her white counterpart, will likely receive a far lower rate of return. A study by the nonpartisan RAND Corporation found that the rate of return for African-Americans was approximately one percent lower than that for whites. The result was a net lifetime transfer of wealth from blacks to whites averaging nearly $10,000 per person."

Worse, the Supreme Court ruled long ago that one does not have a proprietary interest in his Social Security contributions. In other words, when the recipient dies, the "contribution" goes "poof." With private accounts, the money can be bequeathed to a family member or to a charity.

So why not private Social Security accounts?

The late vice presidential candidate, Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-N.Y., opposed private accounts for Social Security. She said if one lacked the "knowledge and the wherewithal to manage your own private funds ... you're gonna be out of luck." Out of luck?

Legendary investor Warren Buffett quotes his mentor, Benjamin Graham, who said: "In the short run the stock market is a voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighing machine." For the long term, prices reflect actual value, and investors who prudently and patiently "invest" in the stock market will have a much greater net worth and therefore realize the resources to enhance their comfort in their retirement years.

Democrats think Americans too stupid, too irresponsible and too impatient to manage their own Social Security contributions. Chileans can. Australians do. Many European and Latin American citizens do. But Americans, at least the bottom 99 percent, well, they're just too stupid to join the party.

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, May 23, 2014

Veterans Benefits vs. Veterans Hospitals --VA makes the case for superiority of private vs. gov't

elderstatement.com May 23, 2014 CATO Institute , Roger Pilon 0 Comments

By Roger Pilon, May 19, 2014, Cato.com

Of all the Obama administration’s scandals—Benghazi, IRS/tea party, AP/Fox News, the near daily rewrite of Obamacare, and more—perhaps none is as telling as the unfolding VA Hospital debacle, now reaching seven states, with officials in the Albuquerque, New Mexico, hospital busy destroying records to cover their tracks, we learn today from the Daily Beast. And it isn’t simply because the outrage over the VA scandal, unlike with the others, is bipartisan that the scandal is so telling. No, it’s telling because it says so much about what’s wrong with the president’s political vision.

This is an administration, after all, that’s dedicated, root and branch, to government. (Recall the much parodied “Life of Julia” White House cartoon from the 2012 campaign—the story of a woman whose entire life was lived through government.) No problem for Mr. Obama is too trivial or too personal not simply for state but for federal attention, no less.

With veterans, of course, a measure of public responsibility is in order, whether justified as entailed by the conscription policies of the past or by the contractual arrangements of the all-volunteer military today. But how that is done is no small matter. To be sure, veterans hospitals preceded the great wave of veterans returning from World War II: in fact, 54 existed in 1930 when Congress created the Veterans Administration. But as those veterans were returning, Congress in 1944 passed the GI Bill, which was noteworthy for two of its core programs: low-cost mortgages, and cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend college, high school, or vocational education.

Note the difference, however, between those programs and the VA hospitals. Congress didn’t build houses for the returning veterans, or build colleges or vocational schools. It simply gave the vets “vouchers,” as we’d say today, which they could use in the already existing, largely private housing and educational markets. But on the hospital side, service was to be provided by the government itself. Ever more VA hospitals were built—some 152 hospitals exist today. And they’re run with all the efficiency and accountability we’ve come to expect from government institutions.

Indeed, the Daily Beast story today puts some perspective on that. Looking at the long wait times to see a cardiologist in the Albuquerque VA hospital, the reporter Jacob Siegel writes:

There are eight physicians in the cardiology department. But at any given time, only three are working in the clinic, where they see fewer than two patients per day, so on average there are only 36 veterans seen per week. That means the entire eight-person department sees as many patients in a week as a single private practice cardiologist sees in two days, according to the doctor.

For perspective, 60% of cardiologists reported seeing between 50 and 124 patients per week, according to a 2013 survey of medical professionals’ compensation conducted by Medscape. On the low end, the average single private practice cardiologist who participated in the study saw more patients in a week than the Albuquerque VA’s entire eight-person cardiology department.

The lesson is clear: Even in those cases where there’s a credible argument for the government to be involved with a service, it’s far better for it to stay out of the business of actually providing the service—far better to leave it to private individuals and institutions to provide it through the competitive markets that reason and experience tell us will ensure both liberty and efficiency. This latest scandal, if we learn the right lesson from it, may be a blessing in disguise.

Attribution: Veterans Benefits vs. Veterans Hospitals (Cato Institute) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Mitt Sells Out Again -- Supports Minimum Wage Hike By Larry Elder

elderstatement.com May 10, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , CATO Institute 0 Comments

Mitt Romney

By Larry Elder, May 10, 2014

RomneyCare was not enough.

Now Mitt Romney wants to throw yet another Republican position out the window. This time Romney joins the clueless leftists in Congress who seek to use government to interfere with the freedom of two parties -- the seller and the buyer of labor -- to agree on the price of labor. Romney calls for an increase in the minimum wage.

The Harvard-educated MBA knows Economics 101. As with anything, an increase in cost causes in a decrease in demand. Pricing unskilled labor beyond its productivity means fewer workers will be hired. It’s that simple.

Romney thinks government-set minimum wage is smart politics. He’s wrong.

True, polls show that even Republicans support a minimum wage hike. But the Congressional Budget Office recently released a report saying that an increase in minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour to President Obama’s proposed $10.10 by the second half of 2016 would likely result in 500,000 fewer jobs.

How wrongheaded are minimum wage laws? Economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman called minimum wage laws “one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books.”

The libertarian CATO Institute says the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act allowed FDR to “issue executive orders establishing some 700 industrial cartels, which restricted output and forced wages and prices above market levels. The minimum wage regulations made it illegal for employers to hire people who weren’t worth the minimum because they lacked skills. As a result, some 500,000 blacks, particularly in the South, were estimated to have lost their jobs.”

How wrongheaded are minimum wage laws? The following, believe or not, is a 1987 editorial from The New York Times! They have, of course, reversed their position from opposing to supporting minimum wage. But at one time, even The New York Times had it right:

New York Times Editorial

January 14, 1987

The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00

The Federal minimum wage has been frozen at $3.35 an hour for six years. In some states, it now compares unfavorably even with welfare benefits available without working. It's no wonder then that Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, is being pressed by organized labor to battle for an increase. No wonder, but still a mistake. Anyone working in America surely deserves a better living standard than can be managed on $3.35 an hour. But there's a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or - better yet - help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own.

An increase in the minimum wage to, say, $4.35 would restore the purchasing power of bottom-tier wages. It would also permit a minimum-wage breadwinner to earn almost enough to keep a family of three above the official poverty line. There are catches, however. It would increase employers' incentives to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.

If a higher minimum means fewer jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some liberals? A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the minority who became unemployable. The argument isn't convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs. Indeed, President Reagan has proposed a lower minimum wage just to improve their chances of finding work.

Perhaps the mistake here is to accept the limited terms of the debate. The working poor obviously deserve a better shake. But it should not surpass our ingenuity or generosity to help some of them without hurting others. Here are two means toward that end: Wage supplements. Government might subsidize low wages with cash or payments for medical insurance, pensions or Social Security taxes. Alternatively, Washington could enlarge the existing earned income tax credit, a ''negative'' income tax paying up to $800 a year to working poor families. This would permit better targeting, since minimum-wage workers in affluent families would not be eligible. Training and education. The alternative to supplementing income for the least skilled workers is to raise their earning power in a free labor market. In the last two decades, dozens of programs to do that have produced mixed results at a very high cost. But the concept isn't necessarily at fault; nurturing the potential of individuals raised in poverty is very difficult. A humane society would learn from its mistakes and keep trying.

The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable -- and fundamentally flawed. It's time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The Shocking Secret Behind Obamacare Enrollment Numbers --Serious court challenge to OCare's existence

elderstatement.com April 22, 2014 CATO Institute , Obamacare 1 Comments

By Michael F. Cannon, Apr. 16, 2014

Barack Obama wants you to know he enrolled 7.5 million Americans through Obamacare’s health insurance Exchanges. What he doesn’t want you to know is how.

Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend.

If the courts put a stop to that unauthorized spending, a majority of Exchange enrollees would suddenly face the full cost of Obamacare coverage, and enrollments would plummet.

“The president is literally forcing taxpayers, without any legal authorization, to subsidize two out of every three Exchange enrollments.”

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, states have the option of establishing an Exchange themselves, or letting the federal government do it. The Act also authorizes subsidies that can require taxpayers to cover nearly the entire premium for Exchange plans. Among the eligibility criteria for those subsidies is a requirement that recipients enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.”

Such requirements are routine, and this one is and unequivocal. Countless federal programs offer subsidies only in states that agree to implement them. The PPACA’s legislative history is littered with Republican and Democratic proposals to offer various subsidies — including tax credits and Exchange subsidies — exclusively in states that establish Exchanges.

The eligibility rules for the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies specify nine times, without deviation, that recipients must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.” House Democrats even complained about this part of the Senate-passed PPACA before they themselves approved it, so they knew exactly what they were sending to the president’s desk.

Confounding supporters’ expectations, 34 states declined to establish Exchanges. Under the plain terms of federal law, subsidies are therefore available in the 16 Exchanges established by states, and not available in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government.

In 2011, however, the Obama administration unilaterally announced it would force taxpayers to subsidize insurance purchased through federal Exchanges as well. It cited no statutory authority for its decision, and has stubbornly refused to follow its own law despite immediate and sustained criticism.

In January of this year, the Obama administration began spending billions of dollars of unauthorized subsidies to induce Americans to enroll in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government. The president is literally forcing taxpayers, without any legal authorization, to subsidize two out of every three Exchange enrollments.

Read the full story: www.cato.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The Elder Statement: Clueless in Los Angeles

elderstatement.com March 26, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , California 2 Comments

By Larry Elder, Mar. 26, 2014

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti pats himself on the back for the "public-private partnership" with Disney, which will double the scope of his summer jobs youth program, providing 10,000 summer jobs for teenage Angelenos, with thousands of the jobs at Disney.

Last year, according to the mayor, 15,000 teens applied for 5,000 jobs. "We had to tell them," said the mayor, "you are on your own."

Mr. Mayor, we're ALL on our own when it comes to finding a job. It's not the government's job to get us jobs. But government can help by encouraging risk-takers to invest in the city. To do that, Los Angeles needs to take a machete to the thicket of rules, regulations, permits, fees and taxes faced by entrepreneurial Angelenos.

Rather then spend time and energy setting up these so-called "public–private partnerships," the mayor should cut out the middleman and deal with the problem directly: Get rid of the job destroying minimum-wage laws!

In California, the minimum wage rises in July to $9 -- before hitting $10 in 2016.

The libertarian CATO Institute argues that after 1938 -- when the first minimum wage went into effect, 500,000 blacks lost jobs they otherwise would have had. Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman called minimum-wage laws "one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books."

And don't let anyone tell you, as local union leader Maria Elena Durazo does routinely, that an inflation adjusted minimum wage would be well over $10 an hour today.

Not if you start at the beginning.

The first minimum wage, in 1938, was $.25. Adjusted for inflation, it would be $4.07.

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Video Source: www.losangeles.cbslocal.com

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Friday, January 16, 2015

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Monday, November 3, 2014

Friday, October 3, 2014

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Friday, May 23, 2014

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Epoch Times Special Offer

A Lot Like Me: A Father and Son's Journey to Reconciliation

Larry's latest book "Dear Father Dear Son"

Double Standards: The Selective Outrage of the Left

Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests that Divide America

What's Race Got to Do with It?: Why It's Time to Stop the Stupidest Argument in America

The Ten Things You Can't Say in America

Pet Supplies

More Popular Larry Tweets

Jamie Glazov Productions

Larry's Hot Tweets

Elderados... did you miss the live broadcast?

Amazing Grocery Deals

Larry's Popular Tweets

Podcasts

Larry's Popular III

Become A Member Today And Get The First Month Free!

Call the show toll free 3pm to 6pm when the show is live at: 888-971-SAGE (7243)

Larry Elder/PragerU: Black Fathers Matter

Cooking Product Deals

Quotes By Larry Elder

Larry Elder on Fox & Friends: Dems giving Trump Zero Credit On The Economy

Victicrat 101: What Is A Victicrat?

Larry Elder and Dave Rubin: Conservatives, Black Lives Matter, Racism (Full Interview)

Larry's Fan Page

Right Sightings: Truth Doesn't Matter Anymore

Skype: Mon-Fri 3-6pm PT

Blogs & National Columns

Trayvon Martin: Larry vs. Piers

Popular Posts

More Popular Larry Tweets

Elder Statement

Recent Post

Contact Us