The reason 35 states chose not to build a local ObamaCare exchange – even though the federal government…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
ObamaCare Exchanges Are Losing Money

The reason 35 states chose not to build a local ObamaCare exchange – even though the federal government made billions of dollars available to do so – is pretty simple: After an initial burst of funding the a state must foot the bill to maintain it.

That’s turning out to be a very costly proposition.

Consider Oregon.

“The case of Oregon is the most extreme,” explains an editorial in the Washington Examiner. “After spending $200 million to develop its own health insurance exchange, the Beaver State was forced to abandon it altogether because of pervasive and intractable technical problems.”

It gets worse.

“Tiny Vermont spent roughly $4,000 for every uninsured Vermonter to develop its exchange – more than enough to buy a pre-ObamaCare policy for everyone for an…[more]

May 04, 2015 • 07:59 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Kauffman Foundation’s “Rules for Growth” Is Roadmap Out of Recession Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, February 10 2011
In this era of runaway deficits, out-of-control spending and crushing entitlements, the conservative majority in the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity. Like Thatcher, Speaker Boehner can crystallize his party’s opposition to statism with a document that points to what’s right about free enterprise.

The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation’s new book, Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth Through Legal Reform, should be required reading for every federal policymaker trying to get America’s economy growing again.  That includes you, Mr. President. 

The product of three years of intense study by experts in several disciplines, Rules for Growth announces a heady aim in its preface: “to help redirect and expand the ‘law and economics’ field to refocus on the connections between the law and growth.”  That alone would be a great service.  Typical insights from law and economics focus on what government does wrong when it comes to regulations.  Rules for Growth promises something more. 

The book’s central premise – simple but all-too-often forgotten – is that economic growth is good.  It raises living standards and increases life spans.  Thus, government policymakers should not just get rid of rules that stifle productive activity; they should be replaced with a regulatory system that promotes growth.

This change in focus amounts to a paradigm shift.  Rather than have policymakers constrain themselves to removing disincentives from the law, the essayists in Rules for Growth want judges, politicians and bureaucrats to reorient themselves and their work in favor of innovation.  In this respect, their effort recalls Britain’s industrial era approach to regulation: When conflicts arose between British economic dominance and the legal system, the legal system was changed. 

Every branch of the law that touches innovation and entrepreneurship comes under review.  Immigration quotas should be reconfigured to increase the amount of visas granted to entrepreneurs.  University faculty should be free to license their patents and retain all ownership rights over their discoveries.  Taxes should be consumption based.  Independent regulatory agencies should be required to conduct cost-benefit analyses before making new rules.  Perhaps most interesting is the recommendation that the legal services market should be opened up by replacing state licensing requirements with a federal standard.  (If auto insurance companies can compete across state lines, why not lawyers?) 
 
Since his January 18th Wall Street Journal column promising reductions in business regulations, President Barack Obama has made overtures to the free market in his State of the Union Address and, most recently, in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Of course, fiscal conservatives should submit the president’s newfound interest to free enterprise to Ronald Reagan’s formula of “trust, but verify.” 

One way to verify is to hand President Obama a copy of Rules for Growth and demand he implement its recommendations.  At the very least, House Republicans could introduce legislation based on the book’s findings, and hold televised hearings debating their substance.  It’s time for the free market to receive a full-blown defense in the halls of Congress.  For inspiration, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) need look no farther than former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 

In 1975, newly elected Prime Minister Thatcher served notice on a “pragmatic” Conservative Party colleague counseling a moderate course on economic policy.  Reaching into her briefcase, the Iron Lady held up a copy of F.A. Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty for all to see.  “This is what we believe,” declared Thatcher as she banged the book down on the table. 

In this era of runaway deficits, out-of-control spending and crushing entitlements, the conservative majority in the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity.  Like Thatcher, Speaker Boehner can crystallize his party’s opposition to statism with a document that points to what’s right about free enterprise.   For fiscal conservatives looking for a roadmap out of the recession, Rules for Growth is it.  

Download a free copy of Rules for Growth from The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation’s website here.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following is not observed on May 1st in the United States?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"A former terror suspect has been named as one of the gunmen shot dead by police after two attackers blasted an unarmed security guard in the ankle during an anti-Islam art contest in Texas on Sunday night.Two heavily-armed men, who are believed to have been carrying explosives, were killed by police after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at around 7pm during a controversial…[more]
 
 
—Wills Robinson, Dailymail.com and Ted Thornhill, MailOnline
— Wills Robinson, Dailymail.com and Ted Thornhill, MailOnline
 
Liberty Poll   

With regard to U.S. foreign policy and national security, which one of the following likely Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination has positions most closely resembling your own?