FreedomWorks

What have we done?  Let me start by saying that I do not believe we didn't have problems with the health care system in America prior to ObamaCare - we did - big problems. But, what I want this post to highlight is what we have done, in order to solve the problems. When I say "we" I actually mean them: Democrats, Barack Obama and every technocrat and central planner who decided it would be a good idea to try to "fix" a system which was providing affordable access to care for over 94 percent of Americans.  The third party payer system (employer based coverage) has disguised actual health care costs from consumers since its inception during World War II. It's a left over product of price controls, implemented primarily by progressives, and is one of the chief factors in the rise of health care costs.   ObamaCare was supposed to fix rising costs and address these issues through private "marketplaces," also known as state exchanges, and provide affordable care for the 46 million Americans reportedly without health insurance. Keep in mind, health insurance doesn't equal access to care.   First, let's take a look at that number, the 46 million without insurance. In 2009, FreedomWorks did an analysis of who is actually without coverage in America. I encourage you to read the entire report. The primary conclusion of the detailed report was that around 16 million Americans, or roughly five percent of the population struggled to either afford health insurance, or were not eligible and already covered under a private plan or public plan. That's a number far lower than the 46 million the Obama Administration touted during the push for the "Affordable Care Act. Now, a month after these "marketplace" programs were launched, already over 3.5 million Americans have received notice that they will lose their health care plans. Fewer than 41,000 people have successfully purchased a private plan so far.  The only success to date has been the throngs of people thrown into the substandard system of Medicaid. Hardly compassionate, hardly the solution the Obama Administration promised.  President Obama repeated at least 36 times, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period." In fact, the reality is, back in 2010, the Obama Administration knew that as many as 93 million Americans would be unable to keep their existing plans. So what have the technocrats, who so nobly want to save you from yourself done?   The hubris of the Left has destroyed your options.  Their conceit, their belief that you shouldn't have liked your plan to begin with will eventually rob you, and your family of any choice you had to make health care purchases based on what you and your family need and can afford, if it hasn't done so already. Yes, the smartest guys in the room, the technocrat knows best.  Except, they don't. More Americans could actually lose coverage than gain it under this law.As Charles Cooke so eloquently stated during my recent interview with him,"They have an unfailing belief in their technocratic brilliance." 93 million Americans could lose coverage, or more.  Even if everything went perfectly, and the master planners carried out their scheme without a hitch, the ACA, according to the CBO, was never expected to cover more than 31 million, and that was before the SCOTUS decision making Medicaid expansion voluntary. Do the math.  ObamaCare is going to destroy the plans and options for nearly one third of all Americans, while hopefully providing options for 31 million others.  That's their definition of success.  That's what they've done, and it's only cost taxpayers at least $400 million for a failed website, countless billions for businesses to be in compliance, and will at least top $1.8 trillion in the first decade.  It makes me wonder, and I have to ask the question, was it ever about health care?  Was benevolent

Did you catch SNL this past weekend?  Even they can't ignore the fact that ObamaCare isn't working.  Last week, I wrote about how the vultures are circling as the ObamaCare rollout has been a disaster. Today, there is real blood in the water and the sharks are ready to pounce. During the shutdown debate, there was "concern" among some Republicans over a failure to see an "end game" to the effort to defund ObamaCare. Conservatives were told they needed to recognize they were playing with "live ammo." Conservatives should not "deceive" the American people into thinking Congress can defund ObamaCare without knowing where Republicans are going to find six Democrats to join their effort. Given the disasterous Obamacare rollout, Democrats are running for cover, especially those who represent conservative states and are up for re-election next year. Democrat operatives are speaking about how the party is, well, let's use the polite word: screwed as Americans get sticker shock over the increased cost of coverage. A law that was sold as lowering the cost of coverage and decreasing the ranks of the uninsured has so far caused 1.5 million to lose coverage including 500,000 in California and 300,000 in Florida.  This while enrollmaven.com estimates that fewer than 40,000 people have obtained coverage through state health insurance exchanges.  Sensing panic in its ranks, there are reports President Obama is considering extending the open enrollment period through the end of March. Congressional Republicans need to unite and insist that Congress pass a one year waiver to the individual mandate rather than an extension of the open enrollment period and codify it into law.Why is this so important and why might President Obama try and preempt Congress from doing so? President Obama knows that once Congress sets a precedent and delays the individual mandate, it will not hesitate from doing so in the future. Also, once Congress delays the individual mandate for one year, that too will be "the law of the land" and subject to debate from one year to the next.  Fully repealing ObamaCare, or defunding it would have been the preferred option, but if we have consensus on both sides of the aisle to delay at least one more portion, the individual mandate, we should push for delay. Congress need only set the precedent by waiving the individual mandate to inflict serious damage to Obamacare. For President Obama, it has never been never about increasing access to actual health care or reducing the cost of care. It has always been about control. Listen to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama's principal health reform adviser, speak about ObamaCare on Fox News. Dr. Emanuel is not interested in suggestions by Democrats like West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin that people should not be required to purchase health insurance coverage that is inferior or more expensive than coverage they currently have. Dr. Emanuel and President Obama know what is best for people. This is why Republicans need to unite and use this political momentum to give Americans one year of reprieve. Republicans should use any and every legislative opportunity to accomplish this goal. Now is the time to unite the party, shepherd as many vulnerable Senate Democrats as possible onto our side, join hands and do something that has been long overdo, drive a dagger straight into the heart of Obamacare!

Like so many U.S. states in the last decade, Ohio’s legislature was successfully lobbied by crony capitalists and environmental radicals to impose a back-door tax on consumers via government mandates on renewable energy and energy efficiency.  State Republicans in the legislature overwhelmingly supported these measures that, in the end, will hurt coal power generation in Ohio more than coal-related regulations from President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  GOP State Senator Bill Seitz seeks to address some of the insanity perpetrated by the previous state legislature via Senate Bill 58, but opposition from within the Republican Party to reform remains formidable.  Although we support a full repeal of these market distortions created by the state government in order to protect all consumers, including the poor and elderly who survive on a fixed income, we believe that Senator Seitz is moving the discussion in the right direction.  Accordingly, his GOP colleagues should support his endeavor. Background By 2025, the amount of Ohio’s electricity produced by alternative energy sources is required to increase to 25 percent.  Specifically, generation from renewable sources is required to reach 12.5 percent – in contrast to a 2-percent mandate today.  At the same time, the state requires a 22 percent reduction in the annual average energy consumption and peak demand that occurs during the three-year period prior to 2025.   These numbers were chosen by the legislature in Columbus when demand for electricity was expected to grow substantially over the next few decades.  In a textbook example of why government – at any level – should stay out of Soviet-style market planning, state legislators reasoned that reducing demand for electricity (increasing efficiency) would be less expensive than building new generation.  Moreover, they also assumed that putting aside a relatively small percentage of new generation build-out for renewable sources could be achieved at a reasonable cost.  Unfortunately, they were dead wrong. Soviet-Planning Ohio Style Rather than demand for power increasing, electricity generation in Ohio dropped significantly – 15.3 MWh in 2008 to 12.4 MWh (in thousands) this year – already a reduction of nearly 20 percent.  With lots of excess generation capacity on the grid, there is no market for building new capacity for renewables nor is there any regulatory justification for efficiency gains to reduce the cost of building new generation. Efficiency, by definition, is good for our economy when it is based on rational economic choice.  However, government-imposed energy efficiency results in inefficient and costly demand destruction.  Specifically, the Ohio energy efficiency mandate drives baseload power generation from the grid, particularly coal-fired electricity, which utilities must reduce to achieve the efficiency target while meeting the 2025 alternative energy mandate.   To make this simpler to comprehend, consider the 2008 demand for electricity as being represented by the baseline of 100.  As a result of falling demand, today’s number is nearly 80 percent of the 2008 baseline, which could be reduced sharply as a result of demand destruction from the efficiency mandate of 22 percent.   Thus, in the dire scenario where electricity demand does not rebound and stays fairly constant over the next 12 years, Ohio’s electricity generation in 2025 could be capped at roughly 60 percent of the 2008 baseline.  What this means is a possible energy starvation of the Ohio economy, which would certainly lead to a rationing of electricity – a decision that would ultimately be determined by government bureaucrats and not by the free market. Moreover, given the fact that 25 percent of generation in 2025 must be met by alternative sources, the available market for coal and other non-qualifying baseload, including nuclea

The technical problems with the implementation of the (Abdominable) Affordable Care Act are becoming the stuff of legend. The entire thing should be rebuilt. But that will not save the ACA, because the underlying policies and political pressures that have caused the problems are even worse than the systems so far created to deliver it. As Twitchy notes, the ACA continues to reap a bitter harvest. But the real problems of the law may come later. Even if the technical issues can eventually be worked out, because the policy errors and economic misconceptions driving it can never be worked out. There are two areas of abject failure in the ACA system implementation: the "front end" and the "back end." Sharp readers will note there is nothing else left to fail. The front end is the web site and systems used to communicate with the user. The back end consists of dozens of interlocking computer and communications systems among government agencies and their crony industry partners, reaching even into the examination room. Both the front and back ends are disasters, and both disasters are driven by the structure of the ACA itself. The Front End The front end has drawn much of the attention so far, and is not ready even though Health and Human Services officials said it would be: Initially, users were forced to create accounts before doing any shopping. HHS released a tool to let people see the prices in their area, but to see subsidy qualification they still have to create an account.  The account creation process is filled with problems all of its own. This is Not How It's Done. Users of amazon.com or travelocity.com do not have to do that. Those sites know that account creation drives away users while slowing down the system, especially the part of the system used to register new users.  Healthcare.gov seems to be more optimized for collecting Social Security numbers than in connecting people with the right insurance products. And the accounts appear to be permanent, with no facility in place to let users delete them. Industry observers say, and the compressed timelines attest, that nobody tested it. Because of the political need to open October 1 (resulting from the partisan nature of the law's origin), testing was not done.   Experts said the decision to require that consumers create online accounts before they can browse available health plans appears to have led to many of the program’s technical problems. Consumers trying to create their accounts multiplied the volume of online transactions that have overwhelmed the website. The White House suggested they simply needed to improved the consumer experience. The incredible departure from best practices of the omission of testing can't be overstated. The Back End Health insurance expert Bob Laszewski says that only 5,000 people have signed up for insurance through the federal exchange. While the numbers are bad, the behind-the-scenes picture may be worse: For some reason the system is enrolling, unenrolling, enrolling again, and so forth the same person. This has been going on for a few days for many of the enrollments being sent to the health plans. It has got on to the point that the health plans worry some of these very few enrollments really don't exist.  The reconciliation system, that reconciles enrollment between the feds and the health plans, is not working and hasn't even been tested yet. Read that whole thing. The bureaucracy is ill-equipped to solve these systemic problems, particularly when the bureaucracy itself may be part of the problem. HHS is treating these fundamental problems as help desk issues (emphasis added): Federal health officials declined to discuss the problem with the enrollment reports. “As individual problems are raised by insurers, we work aggressively to address them,” said Brian Cook, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the branch of HHS that is oversee

Cosmopolitan online magazine has published an article titled, “Top 8 Ways Young Women Benefit from ObamaCare” by Senior Correspondent for Kaiser Health News, Phil Galewitz. The misguided list seems to be a desperate attempt to get most young women (like myself) to act against their own interests by signing up for ObamaCare. Young women deserve to know the truth about their health care options. Here’s a quick list of what’s so bad about ObamaCare, especially for young women:  1. ObamaCare Treats Grown Women Like Children Phil Galewitz patronizingly touts that, “You can stay on your parents’ health policy until you turn 26” even if you’re married. Is still being dependent on mom and dad something to celebrate? ObamaCare requires health insurance companies to provide coverage for the customers’ “adult children” (actual demeaning term used in the legislation!) until age 26. Excussseeeee me, but women in our mid-20’s are not children. Whatever happened to Cosmopolitan magazine promoting female empowerment and independence? Plus, Galewitz doesn’t mention that the under-26 mandate has increased families’ insurance premiums by $151 to $452 per year. Simply, it cost more money to insure more people. This is the basic economic principle called: you don’t get something for nothing. Of course, you can’t get covered on your parents’ plan if they lose their health insurance (see #5).  2. “Free” Birth Control Costs A Lot of Money Phil Galewitz writes, “You’re entitled to free preventive care, including birth control.” That sounds great at first. Who doesn’t love getting free stuff?! But to paraphrase late economist Milton Friedman, TNSTAFBC: there’s no such thing as free birth control. ObamaCare requires all insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved brand name contraceptives and procedures. Well, funny thing, covering more expensive forms of birth control costs more money. There may be no co-pays at the doctor office’s counter, but everyone will have to pay higher insurance premiums. Not exactly “free.” It doesn’t matter your contraceptive of choice or if you don’t use any form of birth control. Shouldn’t young women be allowed to pick the affordable insurance plan that best meets their birth control needs?  3. ObamaCare Health Insurance Exchanges Are a Bad Deal for Young People  Phil Galewitz tries his best to sell young women on the ObamaCare health insurance exchanges. A dirty little secret is that ObamaCare’s success is completely dependent on young people opting into the unfair system. The way that the ObamaCare exchanges are set up is that young and relatively healthy people will be subsidizing the health care costs of old and unhealthy people. Sixty-four-year-olds typically spend six times as much on health care as 18-year-olds. This means that young women that rarely see a doctor will see their health insurance costs skyrocket in the system! Pro tip: If you’re a single childless adult, you’ll save at least $500 by not opting into the insurance exchange and paying the government fine instead. 4. You’ll Pay More For Things You Don’t Want Phil Galewitz says that all health insurance plans will be required to cover maternity care, mental health services, and preventive services. What if you don’t want or need these things? Well, too bad. Maternity coverage will be mandatory—even for men. Women who do not plan on having children will have to pay extra for maternity benefits. Adding coverage for things that some people do not want will only increase insurance costs for everyone. Shouldn’t women that do not want kids or any mental health counseling be allowed to choose a cheaper plan that makes sense for them?  5. You May Lose Your Insurance Coverage Phil Galewitz writes about all the benefits and coverage that insurance policies must provide under the law. It’s interesting what he does not mention: the number of people who will lose their health insurance. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget

On Thursday, September 5, an evening seminar was held in Vancouver, Washington to discuss Right to Work legislation and how it could benefit the states of Washington and Oregon. The seminar, co-hosted by the Freedom Foundation of Olympia and the Cascade Policy Institute, featured Vincent Vernuccio of the Mackinac Center and Harry Beck of the Supreme Court Case, Beck v CWA. Participants paid $10 each to hear how Michigan beat the odds to enact Right to Work legislation and how it's changed the state. Instead of allowing a discussion to take place, several union members crashed the party, screaming at participants, getting arrested and even spitting on the keynote speaker. One eyewitness sent me an account of what happened, along with video. This eyewitness has requested anonymity, fearing reprisals from the unions.Freedom “Ruins Everything,” Unions Protest Three words strike fear into the hearts of union leaders: “Right to Work.” At the mere mention of the phrase, unions in lockstep intimidate, harass, and bully those who dare to question what’s best for American workers. Little did I know I’d be experiencing this first hand. As a young conservative striving to find a foothold in a challenging economy, I was intrigued by the Northwest Employee Freedom event about right-to-work legislation. Held jointly by Oregon’s Cascade Policy Institute and Washington’s Freedom Foundation, labor experts including “top union watchdog” Vincent Vernuccio from the Mackinac Center would be coming to Vancouver to discuss labor reform and strategies for increasing employee freedom across the country. I was looking forward to an intellectual discussion from these leading minds, but others insisted on being heard that evening. From the moment my companions and I pulled up to the Clark College parking lot, already having fought our way through a drenching Northwest downpour, we realized another battle lay ahead. A cluster of people waving signs obstructed the driveway. Standing in the crosswalk to slow down cars, one man snapped pictures of every license plate as we drove in. Intimidation: Chapter One. Chapter Two awaited us at the building entrance. Another crowd milled around the doors bearing more signs, daring any one of us to call them out. “He threatened to punch me if I didn’t get out of the crosswalk,” complained one would-be victim about another event attendee. “Let’s call the police on him.” One man held a sign stating, “Right 2 Work short changes your wallet” and admonished us, “Shame on you!” as we walked by without comment. “Right to work ruins society,” intoned another protester. “Ruins everything.” The only thing being ruined at that moment was the educational forum we were yet to reach. Protesters in the hallway hovered as we presented our tickets, trying to join their compatriots who had already shouldered their way inside. We entered the room to find sheer chaos - men with signs and bullhorns flanked the perimeter, surrounding participants who sat at tables watching the spectacle in disbelief. Vincent Vernuccio, the featured speaker, was countering the amplified voices with his brash New York attitude, giving no quarter as the men tried to hold the event hostage. “It’s our meeting now!” one bullhorned protester proudly proclaimed, as if sheer volume somehow translated to being king of the sandhill. Chanting then broke out. “Hey hey, ho ho, union busting’s got to go! Hey hey, ho ho...” Another shouting match ensued. “Who is paying your wages?” demanded one protester.  “What are your biggest donors, your biggest contributors?” Ah yes, because unions are clearly in favor of financial transparency. The situation continued out of hand until police arrived to a round of applause, escorting out the union trespassers and arresting one man who tried to insist that he was being “profiled.” “Back to our regularly scheduled programming,” Vincent, the speaker, quipped. “If you’re not getting flak, it means you’re not over the target!” The ev

Slate Magazine published something remarkable this week - and I'm not referring to the drivel about you being evil for wanting to give your kid the best education available. No, in this case, remarkable is a good thing. On Friday, they actually ran an article by Hanna Rosin called The Gender Wage Gap Lie, with this subtitle: "You know that 'women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar' line you’ve heard a hundred times? It’s not true." The article starts out with something fairly obvious that constantly gets blurred and distorted in our short attention span sound bite world: How many times have you heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign. Women’s groups say it every April 9, which is Equal Pay Day. In preparation for Labor Day, a group protesting outside Macy’s this week repeated it, too, holding up signs and sending out press releases saying “women make $.77 to every dollar men make on the job.” I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true. The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35. It seems quite obvious that we should be comparing hourly wage or average weekly wages, as opposed to median salary. After all, there are so many variables that affect median salary - average time off taken, education levels, overall number of hours worked - all of which vary widely between the genders. Of course, this doesn't fit the narrative that a certain segment of the population needs some sort of regulatory intervention to be protected from those big bad men unfairly making more than them, but I digress. Rosin notes that when you compare weekly average wages and normalize for a 40 hour work week, the wage gap narrows to 87%. But wait, there's more. Rosin goes even further, citing a study done by two economists at Stanford: But we’re still not close to measuring women “doing the same work as men.” For that, we’d have to adjust for many other factors that go into determining salary. Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn did that in a recent paper, “The Gender Pay Gap.”.”They first accounted for education and experience. That didn’t shift the gap very much, because women generally have at least as much and usually more education than men, and since the 1980s they have been gaining the experience. The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying. If you account for those differences, and then compare a woman and a man doing the same job, the pay gap narrows to 91 percent. So, you could accurately say in that Obama ad that, “women get paid 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” Rosin wraps up the article by speculating, as other economists have, that women simply make different career choices than men. Combined with the career interruptions that are far more common among women than men during the child bearing years, it intuitively makes sense that lifetime earnings and median wage will be lower for women - and it's not gender discrimination causing it. In the end, she says, "And in that more complicated discussion, you have to leave room at least for the option of choice—that women just don

Frequently Asked Questions about Defunding ObamaCare With limited-government champions like Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas and Congressmen Tom Graves of Georgia and Mark Meadows of North Carolina leading a charge to defund ObamaCare via the Fiscal Year 2014 appropriations bill, a lot of misleading information has been floating around about their effort.  Both Democrats who still inexplicably support the law and Republicans who are afraid to take a stand against it have manufactured any number of talking points to excuse their unwillingness to stand against the faltering, unpopular Washington health care takeover. The following “Frequently Asked Questions” list aims to dispel as many of the myths about defunding ObamaCare as possible. Q: My Congressman says he cosponsored the defunding bill, why should he also sign the Lee/Meadows letter (which commits the signer not to vote for any bill that funds ObamaCare)?” A: Cosponsoring a bill that has no guarantee of ever receiving a vote isn’t sufficient. We must achieve our goal on a must-pass bill. That’s why Members of Congress need to insist on defunding via the Fiscal Year 2014 appropriations bill (also referred to as the Continuing Resolution or CR), which must be passed before October 1st in order for a significant portion of federal programs and agencies to continue to be funded. And that’s why we need them to sign the letter. Only by going on record and signing the letter can they signal that they are serious about stopping the Washington health care takeover. Note: The goal of the letter campaign is not to "shut down the government," as many ObamaCare supporters (and some fairweather opponents) claim. The goal is to use Congress's power of the purse to shut down ObamaCare -- and only ObamaCare.A "government shutdown" is in reality a “slowdown in nonessential government services." Services deemed essential, or which have separately appropriated funds available to support them, continue. That's why a temporary budget lapse is typically described as a "partial government shutdown." It's not the end of the world. Q: Since much of ObamaCare’s funding is on auto-pilot, will defunding it actually stop it from taking effect? A: As FreedomWorks has explained at length elsewhere, the Karl Rove / Mitch McConnell / Tom Coburn argument that “A shutdown won’t actually stop ObamaCare” is incorrect and misleading. While much of ObamaCare is indeed “permanent law,” i.e., on auto-pilot, and it's true that even after the defunding language actually becomes law and takes effect ObamaCare itself will remain on the books, the Congressional Research Service has confirmed that federal agencies like HHS and the IRS still require annually appropriated funds to be able to spend “permanent law” funds; therefore ObamaCare implementation would in fact halt during a budgetary impasse, and would of course be halted permanently once the defunding language is in effect. Incidentally, explicitly defunding all of ObamaCare through a new provision of permanent law would also stop the 41 new ObamaCare taxes from being collected, including those that have already taken effect.To be specific, defunders are insisting the CR include the language from the Cruz bill (S.1292) and its House companion, the Graves bill (H.R.2682), which ould bring ObamaCare implementation and enforcement to a complete and permanent halt. Incidentally, ObamaCare’s main auto-pilot spending -- the generous exchange premium subsidies and massive Medicaid expansion funding -- aren’t scheduled to begin until January 1, 2014. The CR fight will take place prior to that time, in September and October of 2013. So a budget standoff can result in defunding. Q: Since there aren't enough votes to repeal ObamaCare, what makes you think we can find the votes to defund or delay?A: It’s true that Democrats have been unwilling to vote for repeal. But in July, 22 House Democrats crossed party lines to support a one-year delay of the emp

Choice creates competition, and competition will lead to public schools losing their monopolies on young minds.  This of course is a very good thing, as it means better educations for every American child. Charter network Success Academy currently has 20 schools in the city and is looking to open seven more in the next school year in areas such as Williamsburg, Hell’s Kitchen, Gramercy, and Harlem. One would think it would be a good thing to provide children in these areas, largely consisting of non-white and lower-income families, with access to better education. Public school supporters aren’t happy, but Success Academy is continuing despite that opposition.  Yesterday, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, which supports “transforming K-12 urban public education” awarded Success Academy with $5 million to expand in New York. They chose Success Academy due to their incredible recent performance in state testing. Two Success Academy Schools in the South Bronx were ranked in the 25 best schools in the state. With a poverty rate of 88%, that is almost unheard of. That’s why we need school choice providing options to all families.   Rebecca Wolf DiBiase, managing director of programs for The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation said “Clearly, Success Academy Charter Schools is doing something right, and this investment underscores our belief that high-quality charter schools need to expand so we ensure that more students have the opportunity to attend a great school.”  That expansion could affect large numbers of students, as they are looking to add up to 100 new schools in the coming decade. With so many applications per seat, there is a lottery to determine which students will be allowed a place at Success Academy’s current schools. With 100 additional schools, they could have the infrastructure to help a larger percentage of the children who do not get a place in the lottery.  If the past is any guide, however, this won’t be an easy road. Parents and teachers have spoken out against the schools, calling them “Vampire(s),” “public enemies,” and “parasite(s),” as these charter schools use public spaces and school buildings in which to teach children.  Rather than seeing charter schools through an “us vs. them” mentality, more educators and parents need to see education as being all about the children. Isn't education supposed to benefit the kids? Whatever can give the most children the best education is the best solution. Education will never be perfect, but we can do better. Charter schools are a good place to start. 

There will be an attempt, and probably a concerted effort, to attack as selfish and even unpatriotic people who do not wish to participate in Obamacare.  If people choose to behave rationally and react to perverse incentives, expect the Left to cry foul. But as long as the wrong-headed and unjust law continues to remain in effect, all of us, one way or another, will be forced to endure the consequences. The only questions are how we can protect ourselves from it, and how much blame we're willing to accept for the damage it causes.  Predictably, we're now seeing it more: leftists are blaming corporate greed for employers cutting hours and changing operations in response to Obamacare. But as young people refuse to waste their money on the overpriced and overly restrictive Obamacare insurance, they too will come under attack. UPS will be dropping some spouses from the health insurance plans of 15,000 employees, saving $60 million per year. The company is doing that as a direct result of a specific provision of Obamacare and a decision by the IRS that the definition of "affordability" for employer-run plans includes only the employee, not the employee's family. But according to the memo announcing the move,  We believe your spouse should be covered by their own employer -- just as UPS has a responsibility to offer coverage to you, our employee. Spouses not offered coverage by their own employer will continue to be eligible. That doesn't sound like greed. That sounds like a company responding to government incentives. As Ben Domenech wrote in The Transom Friday, (lightly edited): Professor Richard Burkhauser at Cornell figured this all out almost two years ago – along with the possibility that this will lead to all sorts of impacts on employers down the line. So the IRS had to rule on the issue. They did so in January, and they opted for the “more fiscally responsible but less coverage” option – but one which angered liberals, because they knew it would lead to more workers receiving individual-only coverage.    Companies have a legal responsiblity to their shareholders to maximize return on investment. The board of UPS could be sued by shareholders for failing to take advantage of all means to maximize return, and $60 million per year is not an amount that can be ignored.   Unfortunately for the purveyors of the "corporate greed" spin, universities, school districts, local and municipal governments across the country are also dropping employees down to part time status to avoid penalties associated with Obamacare. These entities are not subject to "corporate greed", being government organizations.  This is all par for the course: leftists push a policy such as the minimum wage or a tax increase. When it is implemented, the market reacts in ways that are utterly predictable, but also in other ways that are unforeseen, in an attempt to maximize efficient use of scarce resources. Leftists then blame the market players, especially for the unintended consequences. Avik Roy writes in Forbes about one such dislocation, at Delta Airlines, which is looking forward to paying an additional $100 million next year, when Obamacare kicks in.   Individual young people are going to be assailed as irresponsible or as not caring about their fellow man for refusing to buy overpriced health insurance.  Even with the Obamacare subsidies, if they're available, the price for a policy with a deductible may be in the neighborhood of $150 per month. Why should a young person use their last $150 every month to pay for insurance, when all that it may buy them is $10 worth of contraception? When they go to the doctor, they still have to pay 40% of their bills, up until their $3250 deductible is met. Most of them won't ever meet the deductible -- but they still have to pay the premium. It's not rational.  For those who can afford it and have the medical expenses to justify it, health insuran

Top 10 Reasons to Defund ObamaCare on the CRThe current Continuing Resolution (CR), which allows funding for the one-third of federal spending that is annually appropriated, expires on September 30, and Congress is debating its renewal in order for the doors to stay fully open in Washington. FreedomWorks strongly believes that no lawmaker should vote for a continuing resolution that does not defund ObamaCare and urges all Senators to sign onto the letter by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) to make that promise to the American people. Lawmakers should reject the scaremongering surrounding a so-called “government shutdown” that will occur if a CR is not passed by October 1.  Here are the top ten reasons why Congress should stand strong for fiscal responsibility and individual liberty by defunding ObamaCare through the CR.  1.  A “Government Shutdown” Will Not Put Our National Security at Risk The goal is to pass a CR that defunds ObamaCare before the September 30 deadline. However, there are dishonest claims circulating about a “government shutdown” that should be corrected. During a so-called government shutdown, federal functions and personnel deemed “essential” are required to resume as normal. The first item on the White House Office of Management and Budget list of “essential” functions is: “provide for the national security, including the conduct of foreign relations essential to the national security or the safety of life.” National security would not be jeopardized and overseas military operations would continue as planned. 2. A “Government Shutdown” Will Not Hurt Military Personnel  There has been deceitful fear mongering surrounding military pay and a potential government shutdown. A so-called government shutdown would not affect the employment or pay of military personnel. The House Committee on Armed Services has clearly stated that “in any shutdown plan, all military personnel would be deemed exempt and would not be subject to furlough.” Military pay is not dependent on the passage of a CR. According to MilitaryAdvantage.com, “Military pay was specifically exempted from the ten shutdowns that occurred between 1980 and 1996.” Congress can ensure military pay by passing a standalone appropriation and all military personnel will be paid in full. If history is any indication, military personnel will likely not miss any paychecks in the event of a “government shutdown.” 3. A “Government Shutdown” Will Not Hurt Veterans In the event of a so-called government shutdown, veterans’ payments and health facilities will not be affected. The House Committee on Veterans Affairs has specifically stated that, “[In any shutdown plan,] disabled veterans in receipt of disability compensation or pension checks should continue to receive those payments,” as will “survivors currently in receipt of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.” The Department of Veterans Affairs has released a statement announcing that veterans’ health care services would not be impacted by a shutdown and VA hospitals would continue to process claims.  4. Time is Running Out  Key ObamaCare provisions such as health insurance exchanges and the individual mandate go into effect on January 1, 2014. More representatives in Congress need to take the threat of ObamaCare seriously, especially since the law has been enforced so selectively and unfairly, with exemptions being granted to hundreds of labor unions, large employers, and recently Congress itself! Meanwhile, income-verification checks in the government exchanges have been set aside, paving the way to massive fraud, and more than 150,000 “navigators” – volunteers paid to help people enroll and receive government subsidies in the new system – will have access to massive amounts of our personal information through a new Federal Health Care Data Hub, setting up enormous potential for identify theft. Surely even strong supporters of government-run health

Why do some countries thrive while others fail? The question has been on the minds of the best thinkers for generations.  Let’s scale the question down a little bit. Why do some cities flourish while others whither?  Adam Smith said all that’s needed for economic success is a climate of “peace, moderate taxation, and good administration of justice.” Prosperity will naturally follow from these key conditions. Across the world, there are cities that have decided to take Adam Smith seriously and those who have ignored him.  Hong Kong and Detroit are two such cities. In China, Hong Kong has become a model of freedom and economic prosperity. Meanwhile, Detroit languishes in poverty and illiteracy-the wages of neglecting Adam Smith. A mere generation ago, Detroit was a thriving hub of culture and manufacturing, while Hong Kong was an unremarkable British port town. What happened?  Hong Kong’s Triumph: Hong Kong is a unique city. Although its foreign policy and national defense are administered by Beijing, it’s self-governing and classified as a Special Administrative Region (SAR). Because of its British colonial heritage, Hong Kong has a robust system of self-governance, low taxes and liberalized economic policy.  Hong Kong’s success is built on 4 Pillars-almost perfect echoes of Adam Smith. These are 1) an impartial administration of justice 2) use of the Common Law 3) a professional civil service and 4) equal treatment of businesses by government with no favoritism. Through numerous international agreements, Hong Kong has found itself largely free of tariff burdens and onerous trade restrictions. Surrounding Hong Kong are two other districts that have remarkably similar economic conditions. These are China’s Special Economic Zones (SEZ). SEZ are areas where residents are granted special exemption from tariffs, regulations and other heavy-handed restraints on enterprise. Although they are not given the same latitude for self-governance afforded to Hong Kong, they are economically free in the same way. Shanghai, a Chines SEZ, is only as big as Delaware, but is one of the most populous and prosperous cities in all of China. Adam Smith’s formula works! SEZ, if accompanied by peace and an impartial rule of law, are perfect climates for prosperity. Foreign investment is attracted by the chance of increased profitability, locals are able open up enterprises of their own, and resources are made highly mobile. You will find SEZ everywhere, especially in the poorest countries of the world.  In these developing countries, SEZ outpace average growth rates and lift up surrounding areas. When naturally innovative and creative people are given maximum latitude to trade and produce, prosperity always follows.  Disaster in Detroit: At a time when China is undergoing massive market liberalizations -following the path of Hong Kong and Shanghai- the US seems bent on emulating the “Detroit model”. Detroit is the city of government power, union corruption and poverty-the three often correlate.  A generation ago, Detroit was considered a cultural gem, even dubbed The Paris of the West. It was also America’s industrial heart, home to the most successful auto companies in the world. With all this prosperity, the government ballooned as it pulled in more revenue, buying permanent political majorities. Detroit’s union favoritism, welfare expansion, and high taxation made the city uncompetitive and drove out innovators and job creators.  As a result of its anti-growth policies, the city starved for revenue while gnawing off the hand that fed it. But its progressive politicians didn’t budge. They continued to buy votes, hand out favors and spend on lavish government works projects. The tragedy of Detroit is that everyone saw the disaster coming, but Detroit’s progressive politicians were unmoved.  After the “Big 3” auto makers succumbed to union-induced uncompetitiveness, the federal government decided to bai

Top Ten Reasons to Eliminate Renewable Fuel Standards By Scott Alford Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) are the ultimate example of why government is best left on the sidelines of the free market. In an effort to promote clean energy, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted these RFS standards, requiring a certain level of ethanol to be blended into the nation’s fuel supply. The result has been myriad unintended consequences across the economy, from agriculture to the auto industry. Despite the lackluster results, the EPA has decided to slowly intensify the standards. In early 2013, the EPA decided to increase fuel standard from E-10 (an effective blend of ten percent) to E-15 (15 percent), slowly choking an already overburdened energy market. The situation is quickly coming to a head and the repercussions will soon be highly visible at the car dealership, gas pump, and grocery store if nothing is done to repeal these standards.  Here are the Top 10 of many reasons to eliminate RFS once and for all: 1.  The Standards are Based on Faulty Economic Projections According to The Congressional Research Service, the EPA, when determining the RFS, adopted the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 2007 oil consumption projections. These numbers were based on the assumption of increasing oil consumption; however the data failed to factor in recessions or variation in oil use. When new efficiency standards and the recent recession drove consumption down, the result is higher than anticipated mandated levels of ethanol in the fuel supply, jeopardizing automobile engines and fuel infrastructure. Further, EPA policy is forcing refining companies to meet unrealistic standards for unproven fuels. For example, in year 2011, the EPA issued a $6.8 million penalty on refiners for failing to meet the 6.6 million gallon cellulosic biofuel mandate despite overwhelming testimony explaining that production of that fuel at the mandated level wasn’t plausible. 2.  Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) Damage Engines   Scientific studies demonstrate blends of ethanol create risk for automobile engine because of the corrosive properties of alcohol. Therefore, the current E-15 standards are potentially debilitating to automobile motorcycle, and boat engines. The EPA even warns the owners of older or specialized vehicles to avoid the new E-15 fuels because of the high risk of serious injury or death. Brent Bailey, head of a bio research group, has performed 20 studies on the effects of new ethanol blends. He describes the results on older cars as looking "a little bit like Russian roulette." In other words, most cars will be fine but there is a significant danger to consumers if someone places the new fuel in order cars. 3.  Violates Warranties All of the major manufactures of vehicles have suggested consumers avoid fuels with over 10 percent because it might damage their car and void manufacturer warranties. Some car companies have placed labels on new cars warning that they are not responsible for damages caused by E-15 fuel.  This also prompted AAA to issue a warning that EPA policy establishes a "strong likelihood of consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties.” 4.  Burdensome to Gas Stations The new RFS requirement will require gas stations, 95% which are individually owned, to revamp and renovate their pump infrastructures. They will be required to have pumps known as “blender pumps” which dispense both E-10 and E-15. Often, gas stations make pennies per gallon sold and new infrastructure will harm gas station owners forcing them to raise prices or risk bankruptcy.   5.  4 Gallon Mandate Because of the dangers thatE-15 Fuel poses to certain engines, the EPA will begin requiring at least four gallons of fuel to be purchased by all customers at stations that sell E-15 and use blender pumps. The rule is designed to prevent people from buying small quantities of E-10 which could be contaminated

Top Ten Reasons to Reform Digital Privacy Rights By Scott Alford Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, was two years old when the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed. ECPA, our digital privacy law, desperately needs an update. When Congress passed ECPA in 1986, today’s mass-marketed, high capacity computers were the stuff of sci-fi dreams. Digital technology is now a staple of modern American life. Originally, the ECPA legislation was an attempt to balance online privacy with law enforcement while further enhancing technological development.  However, time has shown that privacy has not been respected. The opposite has happened, the federal government’s “national security” “rights” have greatly expanded. ECPA regulation should be reformed to adapt to current technology and to protect Constitutional rights in the digital realm. Here are the top ten reasons to reform Digital Privacy Standards. 1. Digital Privacy Standards Are Outdated ECPA was forward-looking legislation when it was created and the internet was still experimental.  While the law has been patched and mended for over thirty years, much of it remains archaic. "No one could have imagined just how the Internet and mobile technologies would transform how we communicate and exchange information today," said Senator Leahy (D-VT), "Three decades later, we must update this law to reflect new privacy concerns and new technological realities." Digital Privacy Rights need to be brought “up to high speed,” to cover recent technologies and ensure we protect citizens’ constitutional rights. 2. The Law is too Complex and Vague Digital Rights Standards establish horribly confusing guidelines for how the government can access electronic information. Compounding this complexity is a series of paradoxical court decisions resulting in mixed enforcement and confusing judicial precedent. The law must be made consistent and simple.  The legal framework of ECPA impedes the justice system and impedes law enforcement efforts and greatly complicates the training of computer crime investigators. ECPA must set a consistent standard regardless of technology or platform or whether the information is stored or transferred. The law must be simplified and made clear and consistent to protect rights, advance technology, and enhance Constitutional protections. 3. Loopholes and Unreasonable Exemptions Permit Government Abuse At the time ECPA was created, storing data long-term would have been technologically impossible or prohibitively expensive, so it went unaddressed. Under modern technology, ECPA rules weaken protection on emails and documents. For example, if the document is stored on a desktop computer, it is fully protected by the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. However, ECPA permits the same document to be searched without a warrant if it is stored with a service provider -on the cloud or if it’s an email stored longer than 180 days Under the law, a single email or document is subject to separate legal standards as its written, sent and opened. Current loopholes in our privacy laws must be closed for a short list of reasonable exceptions to ensure that electronic information receives full warrant protection regardless of their age or nature. 4. Weak Digital Privacy Enforcement Under current ECPA provisions, digital privacy and non-digital goods don’t share the same level of protection. ECPA protections should be modernized to comply with the Fourth Amendment’s protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” ECPA should apply the same strict standards of personal privacy for electronic and non-electronic information. If evidence is illegally obtained by breaking into someone house, it cannot legally be used in court. The same should apply if an agency of government doesn’t specifically get a warrant for digital evidence. Rep. DelBene. (D-WA) summed it up, “When current law affords more protections for a letter in a filing cabinet than an ema

Embroiled itn what appears to be the makings of yet another scandal, the IRS will be the subject of a hearing held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations this coming Friday morning. Over the past five years, the cases of identity theft related to tax fraud has increased by a staggering 413% and these are only reported cases. Someone has some 'splainin' to do.  “Drug dealers are turning to IRS identity theft because it’s less risky and more lucrative. There are 78% more incidents this year than last year,” said Chairman Mica. “This is not a ‘phony scandal’- this is a real problem costing taxpayers billions and the Administration is failing to act.” Currently, The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration is estimating current fraudulent payouts in excess of $5 billion, but says that if the IRS continues to ignore the problem, taxpayers could be looking at $21 billion of their hard earned cash being paid to fraudsters.  Just as problematic as the monetary waste is the IRS' failure to pursue tax fraud in these instances.  According to an annual report published by Taxpayer Advocate Service: Organized criminal gangs have found ways to steal the Social Security numbers (SSNs) of other taxpayers, file tax returns using those taxpayers’ names and SSNs, and obtain tax refunds. Then, when the real taxpayer files a return claiming the refund, that return is rejected and the victim cannot get his or her refund. To compound the problem, because the IRS takes more than six months, on average, to resolve stolen identity cases, many victims are left exposed to identity theft-related problems the following filing season. Factor in that only two out of three calls to the IRS actually results in interaction with a human and not the automated system, and you can imagine the nightmare victims of identity theft tax fraud face. Currently, the IRS has no efficient means of pursuing fraudsters. This is likely due to the fact that there are twenty-one separate divisions in the IRS that deal with identity theft. Streamlined and efficient, just like the rest of the federal government...  As if anyone needs reminding that this is the same entity that targeted liberty and Constitutionally oriented groups, much less that this is the department designated to oversee our health care. How much fail will Washington tolerate before serious, substantial action is taken to reform entities like the IRS?